Ernst Jünger (1895 –1998)
It seems that the prognoses about the imminent death of the West were not just a favorite topic of the German philosopher of history Oswald Spengler, the author of the much acclaimed The Decline of the West. In times of great geopolitical disruptions and social polarizations, such as those sweeping now over Europe and the USA, predictions about a pending catastrophe seem to be a cherished subject among countless intellectuals, especially those who portray themselves as traditionalists or nationalists, or even worse, those who are portrayed by their detractors as White racists or radical right-wingers. In a flurry of philosophical prose dealing with the purported balkanization of the West, and announcing the apocalyptic endtimes, one could single out the name of Ernst Jünger, a late German essayist and novelist, whose name was once associated with the so-called conservative intellectual revolution in Weimar Germany, and who is today eulogized by all sorts of White nationalists and traditionalists as a leading figure in understanding the endtimes of the West.
A subject that also needs some clarification is the word “balkanization,” a word whose lexical and conceptual connotations over the last decades has come to be associated not just with state fragmentation, but also with ethnic and racial turmoil. How could Ernst Jünger and some of his types of “dissenting sovereign individuals” be relevant in understanding and combating unparalleled racial changes that have occurred in Europe and America over the last three decades? As a man of considerable foresight, but also of insight, Jünger contemplated different types of nonconformist individuals—people that stood up to the System at different historical times and in different political environments. However, nowhere in his voluminous work did Jünger envision the racial turmoil which is soon likely to bring Europe and America into a real cycle of chaos.
Hopefully, some of Jünger’s works and some of his types—his “Gestalt” of “sovereign individuals”—can be useful in understanding postmodern times and what role that individual should play in the System. The ongoing multiracial balkanization of the liberal experiment in Western Europe and America may soon yield far more catastrophic results than the former communist endtimes in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WWII.
The notion of endtimes is not new. It is reminiscent of the biblical prophecies of the Apocalypse and the descent of the new Heaven upon Earth. Thus, in the Book of Revelation there are warnings, but also upbeat signs:
Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
In its secular version, however, this biblical notion of endtimes can be observed among many modern intellectuals who display a strong monotheist and Judeo-Christian mindset. Such a do-good divinatory and eschatological mindset surfaces quite often among secular scribes of the modern System, particularly in their advocacy of Communism, Liberalism, multiculturalism, and their latest avatar, the so–called ideology of human rights. Such utopian, optimistic systems of beliefs offer, as a rule, the formula for the glorious unfolding of the future.
However, in the process of the voyage to the final destination of multiracial embrace, real, but more often surreally evil creatures need to be doctored up to make their entrance onto the world scene — if for no other reason than to give further legitimacy to the prevailing founding myths of the System. Accordingly, the System must squash those wicked figures, usually viewed as symbols of absolute evil. Thus, on the one hand, System world-improvers must ceaselessly dispense flowery formulas about the birth of the paradise on earth; yet, on the other, they must never tire from raising the specter of the absolute evil lurking in the guise of a “neo-Nazi,” a looming “Islamo-fascist, an “anti-Semite,” “a religious fundamentalist,” “a Holocaust denier,” a “right- wing extremist,” “or a “White supremacist” – all of whom dwell on the invisible horizon, all of whom are geared up to bring about the Undemocratic Judgment Day. Should a freedom-loving free spirit — a nonconformist individual—ever question such interim scenarios of the System, he is condemned to silence; or worse, he will be tracked down by the System Thought Police. In the realm of combatting absolute, existential evil, facts and empirical data are quite irrelevant.
One encounters the notion of endtimes in the old European sagas and myths as well, although ancient Europeans had a cyclical view of the flow of time. Well, after all, after each storm, clear weather must show up on the horizon. Ernst Jünger must be credited for making a sharp distinction between the traditional European times of destiny, i.e. the cyclical times and the modern liberal, linear and measurable times of today’s System.
Destiny can be anticipated, it may be felt, it can be dreaded, but it must never be known. Should that occur, man would live a life of a prisoner who knows the hour of his execution (An der Zeitmauer,1959, p.25)
One may tentatively surmise that in order to set up a rock solid future, the System must demand that its constituents behave like docile inmates on the death row.
In its desire to arrest the flow of time and bestow upon the mankind ready-made salvation formulas, the System cannot allow any criticism of its founding myths. The scenario of a possible undemocratic endtimes makes the System nervous and therefore irrational; it prompts its servants to be constantly on the alert and to consider it their sacred duty to resort to the criminalization of those viewed as icons of the absolute evil. Thus, a nonconformist man designated as an evil man is no longer considered a human, but a dangerous animal. Hence, like a dangerous animal, he has no right to enjoy the protection of the law. He must be killed and removed for good.
The Nonconformist in the Balkanized Endtimes
Once upon a time for many people in Europe, especially those in Eastern Europe, Communism was the symbol of the endtimes. The course of the communist era following the end of the World War II seemed to have been set in stone. Indeed, after the disaster of 1945, there were many intelligent Europeans who seriously thought that Communism was not only the end of their world, it was the end of the world altogether. Today, for postmodern White Europeans and Americans, the same question is resurfacing. Is the balkanized West, or whatever the word West may mean today, moving to even more dreadful endtimes? Or are the current times of the System only a passing cosmic yawn that will soon go away? Perhaps, future historians will give the appropriate name for the current System only when, as is so intensely desired by their many enemies, there are no majority-White nations or, better yet, when White people physically disappear.
The problem for many White Europeans and Americans is how to come to terms with the time flow of the System. Can the current times they now live in be any worse than they already are? Where is the end of the endtimes? In a larger historical framework, the time flow of the System represents just a fraction of a second and should, therefore, be of little concern for the survival of the White man. However, for a single lifetime of a racially and culturally conscious White dissenter and nonconformist, the System seems to drag on with no end in sight.
Thinking of time as cyclical, especially in the case of war and social chaos, has historically been well appreciated by all White peoples. Today the notion of the recurrence of upheavals is much weaker, which is largely due to the forceful imposition of the multiracial and ecumenical mindset, promising that each tomorrow will be better than today. However, with the significant shifts in the racial profiles of Europe and America, followed by terrifying global financial turmoils, the possibility of the endtimes of the West is no longer a working hypothesis.
The concept of balkanization does not only imply geopolitical dislocations or ethnic and racial disruptions — a process traditionally and often pejoratively ascribed to the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. Balkanization also means a poor sense of self-worth, a sensation of fleeting or passing identities that are continually replaced by new contradictory identities. This is today visible in the ongoing changes in the racial profile of the multiracial System whereby a host of divergent racial identities collide with each other, each trying to portray itself as the victim of the other identity.
Today, however, the increasingly balkanized Europe and America may require from Whites a different type of self-perception, one which has less to do with their own ethnic identity but more with their adherence to the common European gene pool. And of course, it also requires new types of dissent and news forms of non-conformist action. Arguably, Jünger could be of help in furnishing some didactic tools for the right choice of non-conformism; or he may provide archetypes of free spirits, which he so well describes in his novels and essays: the rebel, the partisan, the soldier, and the anarchist. Despite the fact that Whites, especially in Europe, still continue to be immersed in their outdated tribal animosities and infightings, they cannot deny the fact that they are witnessing a unique low-intensity conflict with non-Europeans—this time not on foreign turf, but on their own territory in the heart of Europe and America. In light of mass migrations from Third World countries, even Europeans and Americans with scant explicit racial and cultural awareness, are forced to chose sides. The forthcoming conflict will not necessarily pit Whites against non-Whites; nor does it need to be a military battle for a historical territory. The conflict may only require choosing the right type of dissent in confronting the process of multiracial balkanization, such as different forms of “cognitive wars” waged via different electronic devices. For instance, a nonconformist who decides to live in the woods amidst wild animals, like Jünger’s forest dweller the Waldgänger, has to behave like a wild animal.
Conversely, the individual who decides to live among bandits can hardly have success in preaching the Gospel. Even tentative guerilla warfare will radically change its nature. During his military campaign in Spain Napoleon was reported to have said that fighting irregular troops or partisans required that the regulars become partisans or guerilleros themselves. The same goes for the modern figure of the sovereign nonconformist who will need to asses the situation first and then act accordingly. No political system has ever declared itself criminal; it is always the opponent who does so. As Carl Schmitt noted, “the modern partisan expects neither justice nor mercy from his enemy. He has turned away from the conventional enmity of the contained war and given himself up to another—the real—enmity that rises through terror and counter-terror, up to annihilation.”
Dr. Tom Sunic (tom.sunic@gmail.com) is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Third Position. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald (2007). The third edition of his book Against Democracy and Equality; the European New Right, prefaced by Alain de Benoist, has just been released.
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
When Heidi went to Heaven 
“As Carl Schmitt noted, “the modern partisan expects neither justice nor mercy from his enemy. He has turned away from the conventional enmity of the contained war and given himself up to another—the real—enmity that rises through terror and counter-terror, up to annihilation.””
It would be interesting to know when, where and about whom Schmitt said this. It sounds like a reference to the partisan warfare of the Eastern front after 1941, but perhaps it is a more general expression of his theory of politics to do with the struggles of Weimar Germany. Taken literally though, it sounds like an extension of his decisionist politics into the subject of warfare that illustrates the consequences of his irrationalist first principles.
From the standpoint of combatting immigration, leaving state power in the hands of others would be disastrous, as that is where key drivers of border controls and the benefits system are controlled from.
I have been interested in the non-stop mantra that ‘We can’t make all illegal immigrants pack up and go home.’ What they mean is that in the land of the free and the home of the brave we MAY not demand that our laws be enforced. We pretend to be a self-governing people, yet the laws on the books are not enforced and the powers that be dare not introduce immigration reform legislation because they know that the people will demand stronger boarders and enforcement.
In the meantime, they trash the constitution out of fear of “home grown terrorists.”
It matters not that the vast majority of Americans are in far more real, immediate danger from illegal immigrants living in our midst that from any foreign power.
I am not sure how much or even if your approach to the issue of racial identification and racism is better than the foolish liberal denial of racial differences. Certainly they exist and cannot be denied or ignored without leading us far into an ultimately unstable world of unreality; and at least in the past, racial differences also correlated closely with cultural differences. Of course, as in the eternal discussions of the differences between men and women, we should accept the real differences between the parties as much as the validity of the different roles they have to play in the sphere of humanity.
However, it seems to me that neither the liberal denial of the differences nor your affirmation of them, even if you accept them as equally valid, is the solution. In the end, the latter is merely the mirror image of and reaction to the former. Fundamentally we need to simultaneously accept and deny the reality of both, which is to say, to transcend both and discover our own utterly-personal sovereign identity. A fraction of this personal reality is racial and cultural, but I believe this is coincidentally, and not substantially or essentially so. Before I was born and after I die I will have nothing to do with being white or black, Christian or Jewish, western or eastern, etc etc. And I would like to understand this ultimate reality of mine even now, while I live in this white body that this time around for reasons beyond my understanding was raised a western Christian.
This is how I believe an Anarch in the mould of Jünger’s character from Eumeswil would see things. ALL external identifications, not excluding racial ones, are ultimately to be separated from. This does not deny the part that my/your present “incarnation” as a white westerner has for my/your present life-situation, for this situation provides the context for the personalised “life-lessons” that each of us need to grow. But the anarchic point of view places clear limits on its importance in time and space and prevents it from ever becoming “the main thing” and leading to the inhumanities of racism and war.
By the way, there is absolutely no discussion or mention of race in Jünger’s exposition of either the Waldgänger or the later and more highly evolved figure of the Anarch. It was an unessential point for Jünger.
I trust your blog is open enough to publish these mild critiques!
Simon Friedrich
ernst-juenger.org
I hold onto the historical obvervation that a people can be subjected to the most horrendous suffering and abuse and dispacement and dispossion, and yet through virtually unscathed.
Genocide is really hard to accomplish. It may never have worked in human history.
The situation is bad but for the next 20 or 30 years we’ll probably continue to dominate the military and security services in each country. Which would be enough….if and when the european descendent peoples decide they don’t want to be dispossessed and want their future back. If and when that time comes, the armies of Europe and America would answer the calls of their people.
@Mickey Meadows:
There have been a lot articles here an elsewhere about purging the officer corps of white males (the most blatant – anapolis, where a prof. of english blew the whistle – that even asian students were being let in with SAT scores that required them to go to a remedial college before the naval academy.
Same goes for the police forces in most cities. the reason for that is obvious- look at the NKVD, etc, made up of entirely ethnic outsiders – more likely to turn on the host population.
The presence of alien groups always changes the course of the host people. Their thoughts and ways are alien to us and bring incredible harm. (Talk about a tower of babble!) Our political leaders do not seem to have any idea of the problem. When a leader cannot see a fly sitting on his nose the people are in trouble.
Certainly, every ethnic group sees a threat to it’s own survival as evil. It is evil. But when their survival is at the expense of our survival the evil to us is greater than theirs. They are trespassers in our homelands.
The only true right is our right to live and do whatever we must to ensure our survival. Our leaders put their personal ambitions ahead of group interests. They never do what we want or need. The political arena is no place for seeking personal wealth and prestige. It boils down to the harsh reality that white men have lost their authority. We seem not to know how to manage a huge, immensely advanced culture. It’s as if our own greatness is too much for us.
There is no white authority to defend and protect the western world. We are floundering like fish in a hostile world. The alien groups have made us feel our obligation is to them. The worms of the world are coming in to feed and there is no poison to stop them.
The Jews seem to have thought of every method imaginable to keep us from doing anything about them. They fear we will see their ploys and stop them. Therefore, making us look evil and making us feel we are doing something wrong is their major playing card.
It seems to me white men are too interested in treating our inner enemies with respect. It would be more honorable to get rid of them. If we cannot be ruthlessy honest we are nothing. Honesty would solve our problems. It would restore white authority.
Expel the Jews and then, the others. There is nothing wrong with ruthless honesty. The time to pity them is when they are somewhere else.
@Mickey Meadows:
I want to thank you for the cheerful thought at the Yuletide, but I fear that even in the military we are under assault.
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2011/09/real-american-heroes-part-two-black-run.html
@Heather Blue:
I must come to the defense of our men. I am old enough to remember when the change took place. It is women who abandoned concern for our people. Unduly influenced by Jewish women, who had excellent reason to disrespect their men, we made impossible demands. When we were on top of the world, like over-indulged children, we demanded that our men make life as good for everyone, as they had made it for us. They tried to tell us that this was not possible. We childishly insisted that if they could put a man on the moon they could do anything. Bless their hearts, initially they really did try. All of their
efforts met with disdain, complaints and the eternal Jewish cry of not enough! By the time that their sons came of age, they said ‘If you can run the world better, go right ahead’.
Our situation will never improve until white women decide that we are living in intolerable conditions and look our men in the eye and say ‘I am relying on you to fix this’. It has worked for our women for thousands of years. It has given us the greatest standard of living in the history of the world. WE lost it through foolishness, ingratitude and an entirely girlish desire to be victims too! Our men will regain it if and when we sincerely ask them too.
When society devolves the generations of men get worse over time. Once the family is abolished white men will eventually behave as badly as black men. The reason is because when you create an incentive not to marry with divorce courts stacked against men it becomes a losing proposition. So the men who reproduce are the aggressive criminal ones who have no intention of marrying. Thus over time the gene pool devolves. Ultimately it leaves women open to be victimized by anyone who wants to.
@Simon Friedrich:
“Fundamentally we need to simultaneously accept and deny the reality of both…”
Intresting comments, but a little respect for the law of contradiction wouldn’t go amiss here.
The word “Balkanization” is rooted in Turkish word “Balkan” which means “rogue states” involved in destablization of the region. Ottoman rulers coined the name “Balkan” for the small European states which were at each others throats along its borders. It was the Bosniac Roman Catholic church which pleaded with Istanbul to save them from Vatican crusaders who considered the church “heretic” for refusing to believe Christ as the “Son of God”.
Ottoman’s ruled most part of the Austro-Hungarian empire for over 300 years through the local Christian aristocrats and tribal lords. Turks did not force the locals to convert to Islam like the Christian crusaders did in Spain and Palestine. That’s the reason, Muslims are still in minority in the White Balkan countries.
Israel, as expected, is exploiting the race and religion fear among the Balkan people. In December 2010, Israeli daily Ha’aretz had reported that Interpol is hunting two Israeli Jews involve in harvesting and buying Kosovan body-parts and selling them in Israel for as much as US$137,000.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/kosova-israel-and-the-islamic-threat/
For books in English see: http://www.juenger.org/bibliography_english.php
White women are like the alien groups…offer them a popsickle of “women’s rights” and they jump for it. Men are authority, but White authority fails. White men are failing their own women. Jews used “women rights” to undermine white authority. White men stood there and let it happen. You don’t let an alien group decide what rights your women should have. (It has nothing to do with Jews feeling sorry for white femailes. It’s all about power.) But Jew-speak has white gentile men feeling they are mistreating their own women. They jump to grovel to the female sex. A kick in the pant suits would be more like it.
When white women are out there abortioning their own children (who – by the way – seem to sense they are being attacked in the womb and try hopelessly to save themselvesby by squirming away) my opinion is that those women don’t deserve sympathy. When awareness sets in, let these mindless sheep enjoy the misery of knowing they violently killed their own helpless off-spring. They need to be straightened out, harshly if necessary. Murdering helpless little human beings is the ultimate evil.
Too many white women prove day after day they are nothing but loose cannons.
@Heather Blue: Heather, alas – the majority of Whites refuse to admit that they are White, and have interests to defend. We cannot preserve ourselves is we steadfastly refuse to admit we exist, in the first place, and possess something worth preserving.
@Alice Teller: Alice – wrong. White men had it all – and threw it away to chase technology (toys) and porn. Mass acceptance and celebration of pornography began 15-20 years before “Women’s Lib”. Pornography has always existed, but was rightfully demounced as socially ruinous. Now- PornLife is the standard aspired to, by far to many alleged adults.
@Denise:
The world is and always has been filled with distractions for the male mind. White women, alone in the universe, persuaded men to set us on a pedestal – and enjoy doing it. Both you and Heather Blue have such a charming way of phrasing things that I am sure you know this.
Men did not give their women rights because Jews asked for them. We already had all the rights we needed – including the right to be supported while we reared our young. I can’t remember who said it but white women really do suffer from the equivalent of cat lad syndrome. We want to help everyone, and then are surprised that the reward is an unlivable home.
@Alice Teller:
Speaking as one of those evil white males who is capable of doing nothing but evil, it is refreshing to read your post.
The women in my family(whom I love dearly)- who aren’t feminists by any means- are none the less convinced that us men are involved in a sinister conspiracy to oppress them and make them their servants. I find it difficult to show respect and appreciation for the women in my life when such actions are only greeted with hostility.
If white women were to again show the respect and appreciation for their men which you have just demonstrated; then most men would instinctively respond by revering there women, and worshiping female beauty, like our ancestors once did.
@Lancashire lad: \
‘It would be interesting to know when, where and about whom Schmitt said this.’
Schmitts work on Partisans comes from some of his last presentations:
“In 1962, Schmitt gave lectures in Francoist Spain, two of them giving rise to the publication, the following year, of Theory of the Partisan (Telos Press, 2007), in which he qualified the Spanish civil war as a “war of national liberation” against “international Communism.” Schmitt regarded the partisan as a specific and significant phenomenon that, in the latter half of the twentieth century, indicated the emergence of a new theory of warfare.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt#Post-World_War_II
@Hyperborean: We must all begin at home to change the world. In defense of our women, so many are overworked these days. The main problem is that women are intensively brainwashed from a very early age by magazines and feminists must get hold of other women’s children as early as they can. I trace the downfall from the transition from baby dolls to Barbie dolls, from love of child to focus on self, fashion, trends. Women also tend to comply with whatever the current social more is. We have lost our way and the results are not pretty. Each of us must look in the mirror for the answer.
@Heather Blue:
I have NEVER been able to fathom the kind of woman with anything approaching a mind with a semblance of decency and rationality that would destroy (abort, murder, tear-limb-from-limb, etc.) her own innocent offspring within her own womb. I suppose with time and 50 million killings rung up, as per this culture, horror has just become a cinematic genre.
@Simon Friedrich: no biology here as far as I can see, earth-bound as I , of course, am. Joe
@HarryO: mere life is not what we should be about. I watch folks with their hopelessly deformed kids (brain or bodies) and I have to contain my disgust. Romans, and all peoples, kill or expose their unwanted or deformed offspring.
The liberal “ethic” demands an Equality of Worth/Value. This is absurd from Genetic Realism/Realist point of view. Abortion is not pretty but it is not some kind of monstrous crime. The Best should be pursued both personally and collectively.
One of the reasons for reduced crime is that Blacks have aborted millions of criminals-to-be.
Abstract and Untethered to Realism …Morals…are immoral. It is that simple.
If we are White Nationalists we are so because the White Race is the Best, and not just because we happen to be White.
East Asian and White hybrids could tone down, for example,
excessive White male aggression. Also the Femininity and neotony of East Asian females could possibly provide some genetic benefits to our females.
However, I do not recommend it at this time, and would not marry an Asian because we need to save ourselves first.
I am just pointing out that, yes, we should be like dog breeders. This is not coarse or primitive biologism. Breeding for character and emotional tone/sensibility is done with dogs for example, and humans should do likewise.
“Well-bred” is usually taken as meaning well-instructed. Instruction is part of it, but temperment is genetic.
So, if abortion can prevent bad-breeding, in any respect, then I am for it.
I am pragmatic, not moralistic. Breed quality children. That quality includes emotional tone that leads to solid emotional integration and bonding with others, both family and friends and soldiers…which we need.
Yes, abortion should only be done in the first couple months, for obvious reasons. But let our emotions be guided by our reason. My Reason, also instsructed by my having two sons and grandchildren, tells me that intelligence and intimacy-capable children is largely a biological concern.
freaks produce freaks.
Joe
@HarryO: There is an African tribe, where to this day, the woman will go off with her newborn to examine it, and if the baby is too deformed, she will abandon it. This may seem heartless, but we are thinking from the perspective of a 21st century person with modern technology and a high standard of living.
The reality is, the African woman must make that hard choice, because she can only carry so many children around and carin¬¬g for one that is not viable endangers her other children as well. Touch choices. Mother Nature is heartless. We are all the descendants of women who made such choices.
I would agree with Joe Webb, at least partially, about breeding. Until recently, it was common for people to pay attention to whether they were marrying into a good family or not. No one wanted their daughter marrying a young man who was descended from a long line of drunks and thieves, because of the common wisdom that “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”