The Conservative Revolution Then and Now: Ernst Jünger

Will Fredericks


Ernst Jünger, 1895-1998

Early in 1927 the Austrian poet Hugo von Hofmannsthal made a famous address to students at the University of Munich. He alluded to and deplored the historical separation in German society between the intellectual and political sphere, between “life” and “mind”. He deplored that German writing in the past had functioned in a vacuum and was “not truly representative nor did it establish a tradition” and was symptomatic of a crisis in civilization which had lost contact with life. In response, he referred to the “legions of seekers” throughout the country who were striving for the reestablishment of faith and tradition and whose aim was not freedom but “allegiance”. He concluded: “The process of which I am speaking is nothing less than a conservative revolution on such a scale as the history of Europe has never known.

Comparing this with the present day situation, when paleoconservative leaders like Paul Gottfried feel lucky to sell a thousand copies of a book, German conservatism was experiencing a period of unparalleled cultural, intellectual, and spiritual vitality as measured by literary engagement. Large numbers of conservative revolutionary political philosophers formed political clubs and organizations and swamped the periodical market with their pamphlets full of semi-political, semi-philosophical jargon. They found access to the “respectable” public, and became the heralds of conservative revolution. They represented an intelligentsia that had the ear of the people, in contrast to the leftist intelligentsia which was considered “Western” and “alien” by most.

Advertisement

Among the most prominent leaders of the “conservative revolution” were Ernst Jünger, Oswald Spengler, and Moeller van den Bruck, each of whom sold hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of books in Germany and were eagerly followed, debated, and almost canonized. They had succeeded in overcoming the separation between the intellectual and the political. Their writings all place strong emphasis on a homogenous, culturally and spiritually unified nation and on the role of the state in establishing and protecting society. (Jünger’s Über Nationalismus und Judenfrage (On Nationalism and the Jewish Question [1930]), depicted Jews as a threat to German cultural homogeneity; see here.)  For this reason they still elicit interest to at least some extent from White nationalists and traditionalists. Although they all rejected the strictly racial theories of National Socialism, this emphasis on a strong, culturally unified state has caused their doctrines and ideologies to be confused with National Socialism. This occurred not only with the left but was characteristic of prominent theorists of the Austrian school like Friedrich Hayek, who are foundational to libertarianism and mainstream conservatism.

This criticism of the conservative revolutionaries is part of the larger criticism of pre-Nazi German society which has been ongoing since the war, and has of course been dominated by the left and such writers as the Frankfurt School’s Erich Fromm and his work Escape from Freedom. According to this line, the failure of German society as reflected in the Third Reich (including the conservative revolutionaries) was that it was insufficiently liberal, that it was insufficiently oriented way from traditional authority and toward modern freedom and rationalism. There is a contrary analysis of some conservative writers like Klemens Von Klemperer (for whom I am indebted to for this piece), alien to the mainstream, that to the extent that German society was deficient, it was more because it was insufficiently conservative, that it lacked sufficient loyalties, roots, allegiances and faith. From a traditionalist point of view that is the only point of view that makes sense, standing as it does against the liberal notion that there was nothing wrong with either Weimar Germany or today’s society that a little, or perhaps a lot, of diversity training and PC conditioning won’t cure. Using this framework it is instructive to see how the conservative revolutionaries, starting with Ernst Jünger, measure up.

Ernst Jünger

Among conservative revolutionary writers Ernst Jünger occupies a unique niche, ideologically and most obviously historically, Jünger lived to the ripe old age of 102, dying in February 1998, just a few months short of the release of Baby One More Time. (Fortunately, by that time the lifelong Nietzschian had converted to Catholicism, thus avoiding the necessity of one last comment on the victory of Spenglerian decadence and the final victory of Zarathustra’s “Last (Wo)Man”.) And it was an active literary lifespan, including definitive works like Eumeswil (1981) and Aladdin’s Problem (1992). After his Weimar period, however, Jünger’s books never attained a mass following. In fact, the works of Jünger’s later life are almost unknown in the English-speaking world. None of the numerous studies I read on the revolutionary conservatives I read ever mentioned that Ernst Jünger was still alive, and that his present work seemed to bear little relationship to the ideas they associated with him.

How do we start in understanding this extraordinarily long and productive life, especially when his work is considered not only in its own right but as paradigmatic of a whole, extraordinarily productive and significant generation of writers? It is certainly not a simple task. Initially one might start with his reputation not in our narrower world. Tom Sunic in part I of his article on Jünger wrote that Ernst Jünger “is today eulogized by all sorts of White nationalists and traditionalists as a leading figure in understanding the endtimes of the West.” Specifically he is of help in charting “new types of dissent and new 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.” Interpreting such a broad mandate of such a prolific and eclectic writer over such a long life span in such a difficult time as today is not easy.

It might help to reflect briefly on what it is of among all the revolutionary conservatives that makes Ernst Jünger especially popular among some White nationalists and traditionalists. Probably it has much to do with the fact of his life experiences and longevity, spanning the entire twentieth century, as described in Ernst Jünger: A Portrait of an Anarch. Having lived through all these eras, he undoubtedly is a living symbol to some of what a surviving White nationalist in our era would look like. I suspect his popularity might have to do with Jünger’s ability to be “all things to all men.” To WN’s still looking back with nostalgia at the Third Reich, the high position his writings enjoyed and his prominent war service at the Paris high command (even if after the failed plot against Hitler he received a dishonorable discharge) serves him well. To those WN’s and traditionalists of a libertarian bent, the kind that practically canonize Ron Paul, Jünger’s latter day anarchist tendencies (albeit qualified in the form of his term the Anarch) is reassuring.

The free spirits that Sunic describes so well provide the strongest source of continuity in his thought. Other than in this, his early writings in the Weimar period, for which he is mainly known for and studied today by mainstream scholars, diverge greatly from his later writings. Although he is known chiefly for his war works such as Storm of Steel (1925), it was in more theoretical works like Das Arbeiter (1932) that outlined the philosophy of this period. He saw the troubling implications for ethics arising in the modern military and industrial world, but labeled concern for them “romantic.” On freedom, which was of concern to conservatives then as now, he likewise distinguished himself from the other revolutionary conservatives with his easy de facto dismissal of its practical relevance. While rejecting individual freedom as “suspect,” he seized upon “total mobilization” as an ideal situation in which freedom would survive only insofar as it spelled total participation in society. He described an inherently self-contradictory (Hegelian identity) relationship between freedom and obedience: freedom was reduced to “freedom to obey”. While he privately preferred the National Bolsheviks, it is easy to see why the National Socialists were so fond of his early writings.

The later Ernst Jünger

His later writings, starting with On the Marble Cliffs (1939), reflect his disillusionment with National Socialism and his reengagement with ethics and individual freedom. In place of his Das Arbeiter archetypes of “the worker” and “the soldier” (the prototype of the S.S. man), he created a new type, “the woodsman” which is the prototype for the Anarch, defined as “one who strives to preserve by all means his autonomy of thought and his independence in the face of historical trends and the consensus of majorities.” Jünger’s writings returned to the world of the civilian and the individual, to the preservation of freedom against totalitarianism.

At least in this respect, the later Jünger seems to certainly help fulfill Sunic’s search for nonconformist weapons of dissent against today’s multicultural tyranny. The question I have is to what extent, if any, is Jünger’s later thinking representative of or supportive of traditionalism, let alone White nationalism. While he differentiates his Anarch figure from anarchism, it still seems to share certain basic characteristics of anarchistic thought which utterly oppose it to traditionalism or White nationalism.  Indeed, Simon Friedrich, an expert on Jünger, characterized Jünger’s position as follows. “ALL external identifications, not excluding racial ones, are ultimately to be separated from”, leading a reader to ask: “So if we have to get rid of our identifications, what are we left with?” Jünger had become a radical individualist.

Jünger was always a consistent thinker. He clearly saw the figure of the Anarch as incompatible with that of the worker or the soldier, the types he saw as logically arising out of his earlier attempts to fashion a vision of a homogenous, unified, and culturally cohesive society. Jünger seems to still have seen a Hegelian identity between freedom and the service and sacrifice any traditionalist or White nationalist vision of society he can envision would have. The fact that the later Jünger switched sides on that issue doesn’t help us with this dilemma. Throughout his life and especially in his later period Jünger always veiled some of the political implications of his views by an ostensible apoliticism. One wonders, if he had chosen to connect anarchistic-tending views toward a congenial, politically oriented outlet, would his ideas have been much different from the political policy prescriptions one sees in Reason magazine or any other of the invariably open-borders libertarian groups?

This is a logical outcome of anarchistic-tending philosophies. Consistent thinkers like Jünger recognize that one cannot have one’s cake and eat it too, and they make the necessary choices. One cannot separate oneself from society by “fleeing into the forest,” as his forest dweller or woodsman (Waldganger) had done, and still remain involved in the struggles and conflicting identities of society. His choice clearly seems to mark him as not one of us, albeit it seems to reflect his characteristic aloofness rather than antagonism to a racial communitarian identity. Imagining his type as just watching from the watchtower, waiting for the right moment to strike, in turn strikes me, as it must have struck those involved in the plot against Hitler who hoped for his assistance, as just wishful thinking. The watchtower metaphor rather brings to mind a quote of his: “I have chosen for myself an elevated position from which I can observe how these creatures (the masses) devour one another”(Der Fragebogen, p. 291). His refusal to involve himself in the Hitler assassination plot was correspondingly another expression of his aloofness “I am convinced … that by political assassination little is changed and above all nothing is helped”(Der Fragebogen, p. 540).  One of the ironies of this supreme lover of martial combat is that in politics he was close to a pacifist.

Although the writings of Ernst Jünger should not be seen as infallible truth, I agree with Sunic that he is a potential source of didactic tools for us. I feel a review of some of the other conservative revolutionary writers might be even more useful in this regard. Of all the revolutionary conservatives, Jünger’s writings in many ways are the most problematic. Hence the comment of one of their major periodicals, Deutsches Volkstrum, that “for the conservative man the way of Ernst Jünger would mean a major reorientation.” Other revolutionary conservative writers such as Moeller van den Bruck were also aware of the traditional dilemmas for conservatism, such as the duality between “freedom” and traits such as “allegiance”, “duty”, and “sacrifice.” These thinkers often worked more diligently toward conservative solutions for these dilemmas, typically proposing more complex solutions than Jünger’s streamlined (by ignoring conservative concerns) formulas. As noted above, the conservative critique regarding the weak point of the conservative revolutionary writers is the need to reconcile their ideas with traditional conservative concepts, as exemplified by Jünger. Even if they, unlike Jünger, did not live nearly so far into our present timeframe, their analyses of many things strike one as equally if not more perspicuous.

Will Fredericks is the pen name of an Oklahoma engineer who often posts as “okiereddust” on Internet forums.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

130 Comments to "The Conservative Revolution Then and Now: Ernst Jünger"

  1. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    April 3, 2012 - 10:55 pm | Permalink

    @http://goo.gl/npA46
    The TOO commenter Clytemnestra has got some great ideas of micro-secession which mesh nicely with HHH’s.

  2. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    April 3, 2012 - 5:46 pm | Permalink

    @Wikipedia article on him. Apparently Der Fragebogen has not been translated into English, right, (Guess it’s availability in German but not English puts it in the category of Two Hundred Years Together)

  3. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    April 3, 2012 - 12:41 am | Permalink

    @) you have to give some credit to the most influential classical liberal John Stuart Mill, especially since his utilitarianism was that of classical liberalism as a whole. As you reject utilitarianism, I find it interesting that Moeller found utilitarianism to be the Achilles heal of British liberalism’s claim to consistency and integrity, re: “The English did not observe how gravely they gave themselves away by so exclusive a devotion to utilitarianism. A certain sense of justice still survived amongst them, however, which on occasion looked to the cause and not the advantage. During the American war Burke had the courage to speak in Parliament in favour of the Americans. But Burke was a conservative. The English sense of justice survived more among the tories than the whigs.”

  4. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 31, 2012 - 2:49 am | Permalink

    p. 87 of the Hoppe paper:
    “Forced integration is a means of breaking up all intermediate social institutions and hierarchies (in between the state and the individual) such as
    family, clan, tribe, community, and church and their internal layers and ranks of authority. Through forced integration individuals are isolated (atomized) and their power of resistance vis-à-vis the State is weakened…”

  5. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 31, 2012 - 2:25 am | Permalink

    “invariably open-borders libertarian groups” finds its rebuttal here:
    http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_1/16_1_5.pdf

    And Hoppe is not the only one.

  6. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 31, 2012 - 1:51 am | Permalink

    Reason magazine, that Ron Paul slammer, pro-open borders, pro-war, anti-racialist (except for…), pro-carbon tax, “libertarian” publication? Neo-con rag.
    http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/24/the-ron-paul-delusion

  7. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 31, 2012 - 12:11 am | Permalink

    “To get to libertarianism one must passes through and accepts the presuppositions of John Stuart Mill. ”

    This is incorrect. Rothbard and others have shown that Mill is far from being a libertarian. Rothbard, in fact, devotes an entire chapter to him in Classical Economics precisely to debunk this false characterization.
    http://mises.org/document/3986

  8. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 30, 2012 - 11:15 pm | Permalink

    @http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html
    but I assume you’ve got more substantive criticisms and would be interested to hear them.

    “While he differentiates his Anarch figure from anarchism, it still seems to share certain basic characteristics of anarchistic thought which utterly oppose it to traditionalism or White nationalism.”

    Your conclusion above I find perplexing. Anarchism is only an absence of the State. You seem imply that the State is the only institution capable of conditioning social behaviour, and that without it radical individualism is the default position à la Hobbes. Church, community, race, culture, traditions do not figure at all in dictating societal order?

  9. Ernst's Gravatar Ernst
    March 17, 2012 - 1:42 pm | Permalink

    The attribution of _Der Fragebogen_ to Jünger is an error, as the author was Ernst von Salomon, most notable for his role in the 1922 assassination of the German Jewish industrialist Walter Rathenau. That having been said, the book is well worth reading as a revealing glimpse into the nature of the US portion of the occupation of Germany. The book is a published form of the completed de-nazification questionnaire (Fragebogen) he was required to complete, and his sarcastic answers are quite humorous to read. (Jünger, in contrast, refused to answer his Fragebogen.) The climax, if one can use the term in analyzing such a work, is Salomon’s account of being physically beaten by US soldiers during his interrogation and the rape of his wife during hers.

  10. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 8, 2012 - 11:47 pm | Permalink

    @Tony L: I’ll agree with you again Tony L, as I said in my essay, that the conservative revolutionaries are not an easy topic, nor is political theory, especially serious conservative political theory, in general. As I note in my article although they sold millions of copies of their books in 20’s Germany, their writings, even current ones like Ernst Juenger’s in the English speaking world today and especially America are generally known about, much less read, only by academics. Contemporary audiences like yourselves are much different than their audiences.

    It would be nice if their writings could be nicely reduced to a few simple catch phrases, or indeed if a few simple catch phrases were all we needed to know to understand our times, as the Nazi’s of their time or ours (such as Alex Linder), think. To yield to suchterrible simplificateurs, and think we can do our subject likewise, is not honest, and can easily become a betrayal. I don’t admire a lot about Einstein, but I do appreciate his axiom, “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”. Not every “rpremonition of the endtimes”, as Sunic put it is easily understood, but that does not mean it can’t influence us.

    The chimpanzees in 2001, A Space Odyssey” certainly didn’t understand the Pythagorean theorem, but somehow the black monolith was still able to inspire them to start beating bones against it. Knowledge often starts with frustration.

    Einstein that said

  11. Tony L's Gravatar Tony L
    March 7, 2012 - 8:35 am | Permalink

    Give us a break. Even for the agreeable readersi, this article requires just too much effort to follow. Is the author trying to reach 14 people? Reduce it by 50% as a start. Even people with lots of spare time simply will not read it. I’ll give it another try later.

  12. March 4, 2012 - 4:34 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks: I said that N-S resembled Catholic social doctrine “in some respects.”

    Similarities and differences in doctrine are one thing. The struggle of organizations for power and influence is another. Despite some points of agreement, yes there were also conflicts between N-S and the Catholic Church.

    Your eagerness to shoot down what I say here has led you to create strawmen and make some rather ridiculous oversights. Get off your highhorse before you fall off.

  13. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 4, 2012 - 2:50 pm | Permalink

    @Quadragesimo Anno (Reconstruction of the Social Order) , a lot which was written by Ignaz Siepel, who was in turn strongly influenced by Othmar Spann, both of which for a time like others made the mistake of pandering to the National Socialists. Their thinking carried into the Dollfuss regime. For their trouble Dollfuss of course was assassinated by the National Socialists, and Othmar Spann was denounced by the Party (See that “The Pope of the Intellectuals” and other links above) and arrested by them shortly after the Anschluss.

    Not to mention all the trouble that arose within the Third Reich itself between the regime and the party, over things like Catholic Youth Organizations and much else. Your comment reminds me of one of the stupider comments of (the Berlin based and revolutionary conservative) Tat magazine, that they were the true revolutionaries and the National Socialists were just a “Popish” south German party.

  14. March 4, 2012 - 5:51 am | Permalink

    @icr:

    Wasn’t Fr. Coughlin a sort of Christian national socialist ?Wasn’t Fr. Coughlin a sort of Christian national socialist ?

    In some respects N-S seems to have a lot of resonance with Catholic social thought, which is not surprising given that Catholic Bavaria is where N-S first grew into a substantial movement.

  15. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 4, 2012 - 1:03 am | Permalink

    @http://goo.gl/WN8XY

    And in Democracy: The God that Failed, his comparative study of monarchy vs. democracy, makes a very good case for the former as the better model for delivering liberty, although not championing it as an ideal. http://goo.gl/e62bG

    There is much to criticize in the Brenton Sanderson paper you cite, but just to select one point, he seems to fall into the trap common to neoclassical economics, homo oeconomicus, man driven purely by material self-interest. The Austrian School makes no such assumption, nor pretends to understand why people act (that’s psychology), merely that they do so subject to certain real-world constraints, which is economics.

  16. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 3, 2012 - 11:37 pm | Permalink

    @Wikipedia article, which is actually quite interesting. I never realized how his operation was basically destroyed by heavy handed government suppression, including before the start of the war.

    He was not the only “far-right” movement of that radical-friendly period by far of course. Besides the Huey Long associate Gerald L.K. Smith there was the Indiana based Ku Klux Klan of the 20’s, and also
    Gerald Winrod. And of course there were mainstream conservative publications that were viewed as being a little fringe too, like The American Mercury.

    Not too many people seem to study these movements, least of all in traditionalist or WN circles, (who sometimes don’t seem that concerned with what’s happening to people like Edgar Steele and David Duke now) but like the revolutionary conservatives in Germany, to say nothing of all the 30’s European fascist movements, almost all seemed to have been sucked up in Hitlerism’s reverse Midas touch. To survive seemed to require, as Franco did, a favorable position together with carefully clarifying ones position in regards to and distancing oneself from the Nazi maelstrom. Hence I think most right-wing movements preoccupation with being as far away from National Socialism as possible, to the point where they abandon all of their own principles.

  17. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 3, 2012 - 9:56 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Well, here I’m going to disappoint you. I believe evil to be an innate part of man. Something metaphysical that no political organization changes. On the other hand, its expression can be affected by the social and political order. ……

    And my anaethema to centralization is not because I believe more tyrants are thereby created (the womb is where I’d look for that), but because it offers the would-be tyrants the means to exercise what comes naturally to them on a greater scale.

    I know libertarians hate to be pinned down, but “reducing centralization” is hardly the end or even the middle point of most libertarians I know. In fact, in a lot of issues, the Libertarian Party has taken a stand against states rights, although in the context of this discussion that’s really neither here ‘nor there.

    To respond to your point on etymology, not even Mises referred to the very school he’s most strongly identified with as the “Austrian School”. The school of thought can be traced back to the Spanish Scholastics. It certainly pre-dates British personalities like Mill and Smith, who are often wrongly attributed with its genesis. http://goo.gl/OUEY

    I thought I was being clear that my concern was with the etymology of the word “Libertarian” not “Austrian School”

    And as Middle-Ages pre-dates the modern Nation-state, I’m little surprised that Jewish containment was more successful then than now.

    Let me quote that phrase again “Libertarianism is part of the Anglo-American liberal tradition in political philosophy. It is a development of classic liberalism, and not a separate category from it.” Because as I thought everyone understood it liberal tradition basically defines itself against such things as the Middle Ages.

    If you can find a libertarian who raises a positive not toward the Middle Ages as a whole (not just the anomalies like the Vikings) I’d be interested. I thought it was just odd sorts like Otto Strasser (who talked about restoring economic structures modeled in certain ways on the guild system) who talked this way.

  18. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 3, 2012 - 9:04 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant: “good and evil contained…”. Shocking coffee deficit!

  19. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 3, 2012 - 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Will Fredericks:
    “I’d just guess that he lacks your religious faith that things like “statism” and “state welfare” are responsible for all evil, and that in turn their removal will remove the source of evil.”

    Well, here I’m going to disappoint you. I believe evil to be an innate part of man. Something metaphysical that no political organization changes. On the other hand, its expression can be affected by the social and political order. Much as good manners aren’t about liking someone, as anyone who reads the Victorian classics will realize, but about social harmony. Allowing us to live together without tearing each other apart (good and evil contained, where possible, to verbal, and not physical jousts).

    And my anaethema to centralization is not because I believe more tyrants are thereby created (the womb is where I’d look for that), but because it offers the would-be tyrants the means to exercise what comes naturally to them on a greater scale.

    To respond to your point on etymology, not even Mises referred to the very school he’s most strongly identified with as the “Austrian School”. The school of thought can be traced back to the Spanish Scholastics. It certainly pre-dates British personalities like Mill and Smith, who are often wrongly attributed with its genesis. http://goo.gl/OUEY

    And as Middle-Ages pre-dates the modern Nation-state, I’m little surprised that Jewish containment was more successful then than now. ☺

  20. icr's Gravatar icr
    March 3, 2012 - 2:44 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    “by 1930, National Bolshevism became the prevailing mood among the Rightist intellegentsia. For many German nationalists and particularly for those affected by the economic crisis, even National Socialism came to mean a compromise”.

    Wasn’t Fr. Coughlin a sort of Christian national socialist ? Also, he was a supporter of the aborted (by assassination) presidential campaign of Huey Long, who was left of FDR on economics.

  21. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 3, 2012 - 11:16 am | Permalink

    @Libertarianism and White Racial Nationalism)

    There really is a lot of material he has put out explaining why he dislikes libertarianism for instance Free To Lose: Jews, Whites and Libertarianism
    There really isn’t any reason for libertarians who assert sympathy with traditionalism and White nationalism and Dr. MacDonald to be more aware of his critiques of libertarianism and its implications.

    I suspect one reason for this is the syncretism Paul Treanor ascribes to libertarians. They seem to be continuing this old pagan tradition, unaware of the absurdity to many of trying to, in a political sense of “having a part in the Lord’s table and the table of demons (I Corinthians 10:21)”

  22. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 3, 2012 - 10:38 am | Permalink

    @Libertarianism in One Lesson

    I think the etymology of the word is important because I tend to agree that, especially as practiced today in America, like National Socialism, Libertarianism is more like a religion than anything else. To be a little more precise “The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a ‘worldview’. (

    http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html)

    Not that the Austrian school hasn’t been ascribed as having its own premises that must also be irrationally accepted, but since they don’t call themselves libertarians, I think you must defer to their judgement. The above reference states that

    Libertarianism is part of the Anglo-American liberal tradition in political philosophy. It is a development of classic liberalism, and not a separate category from it. It is specifically associated with the United States, and to a lesser extent with Britain and its former ‘white colonies’ (Canada, Australia, New Zealand). …. Here, the word ‘liberal’ is used in the European sense: libertarians are a sub-category of liberals. As a political philosophy, liberalism includes John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek (my emphasis), Isaiah Berlin, and John Rawls. As a political movement, it is represented by the continental-European liberal parties in the Liberal International.

    In other words the author finds libertarianism a sub-category of Hayek’s thought, as will classical liberalism as a whole.

    Return to touch on Moeller therefore, I am confident he would find the characteristics of libertarianism generally derived from its origin in Anglo-Saxon liberalism and pithily categorize it as such. To get to libertarianism one must passes through and accepts the presuppositions of John Stuart Mill. Hayek was certainly right to be suspicious of him, even if he greatly overstated his influence on Germany.

  23. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 3, 2012 - 3:22 am | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:
    I’m not familiar with Moeller’s writing or philosophy, but I think the State’s manifest failure in protecting its subjects’ cultural and ethnic integrity is the reason why we’re here in the first place, banging away in the ether.

    And yes, I do find KM’s view contradictory with regards to society and the State. On one hand, as a Catholic, he recognizes the importance of non-State, social institutions. But he seems to miss the fact that statism has deliberately usurped many of the traditional roles previously exercised by the Church. (How old is civil marriage, a century or so? And public schooling?)

    Likewise I have difficulty seeing how any fondness for community and family (which I perceive in KM’s writings) can possible sit comfortably with state welfare, which interposes the government between members of these categories.

    I do agree that today’s freedom is ersatz. Yes, I can buy fifty different cheeses at my local store, but I can’t speak freely without fear of reprisal, can’t hire or fire without a lawyer holding my hand, and must support intrusions into my personal life that would have been unthinkable a century ago, whilst paying vastly higher tribute for the privilege.

    To me it’s just so obvious that Jews’ grip on Western societies has been directly proportional to the power of the state, with the one historic exception of NS, short-lived and with all the unavoidable internal problems of central planning.

  24. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 3, 2012 - 2:25 am | Permalink
  25. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 2, 2012 - 10:19 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    I have trouble reconciling what you maintain about libertarianism with this excerpt from CofC:

    “Americans at the turn of the 19th century looked out on the world and saw their own society as superior to others. They saw themselves and other European societies as reaping the rewards of political and economic freedom while the rest of the world suffered as it had from time immemorial—the despotism of Asia, the barbarity and primitivism of Africa, and the economic and political backwardness of Russia and Eastern Europe.”

    p. xix, Preface to the Paperback Edition. Bold is mine.

    Well the scope of your question seems both broad and rather vague, contrasting what you seem to see as a paragraph in CofC which discusses some of the historically favorable results of freedom in 19th century America with my criticism of libertarianism. Libertarians certainly don’t have a monopoly on freedom. And Moeller wasn’t attacking freedom or political (classical) liberalism, only modern liberalism’s false concept of freedom, and the fact that modern liberalism because of all its defects increasingly just used the word “liberty” just as a catchword, which they privately knew was dishonest.

    But one thing we can clear up is that that these statements in CoC certainly don’t indicate Kevin MacDonald is a libertarian. Quite apart from his later comments on libertarianism in TOQ, his statements on liberty, America, and western culture in general is part of carefully balanced analysis, which must be understood in its whole. He view western culture as historically prone to, supporting of, and benefiting from liberty as it does individualism in general, but only because of and arising out of a unique set of circumstances, which we generally know as our western culture. Outside of this cultural context to be succinct it is a whole ‘nother ballgame.

    As western peoples encounter pressures from non-western forces, the expression of their liberty is of necessity altered and somewhat curtailed, resulting in different views on liberty. The historical attitude toward political (classical) liberalism and its liberties and freedoms therefore differed in Central Europe from that of the English speaking world, and especially America. Just as an example the English speaking world’s dislike of large standing armies, which are generally considered (as our Founding Fathers felt)
    to always represent a certain amount of clear and present danger to democratic institutions, was more workable in the British Isles and America, separated from the continent by water, than it was in Central Europe, where the only land you possessed was what you were able to defend by military force.

    But I digress. CoC views on liberty are clearly elaborated in Chapter 8. Brief review of paragraphs such as these is enlightening.

    As discussed at several points in this volume, the radical individualism embodied in the Enlightenment ideal of individual rights is especially problematic as a source of long-term stability in a Western society because of the danger of invasion and domination by group strategies such as Judaism and the possibility of the defection of gentile elites from the ideals represented in the other two models of social organization. These latter two events are particularly likely to destroy the social cohesiveness so central to Western forms of social organization. As Smith notes, the transformations of American society in the post-Civil War era resulted from the “liberal” cultural ideal “that opposed slavery, favored immigration, and encouraged enterprise while protecting property rights” and that posed a severe threat to the collective life at the center of American civilization.

    CoC Chapter 8

    The result is that whether Western individualistic societies are able to defend the legitimate interests of the European-derived peoples remains questionable. A prominent theme appearing in several places in this volume and in PTSDA (Ch. 8) and SAID (Chs. 3-5) is that individualistic societies are uniquely vulnerable to invasion by cohesive groups such as has been historically represented by Judaism. …….

    The present tendencies lead one to predict that unless the ideology of
    individualism is abandoned
    not only by the multicultural minorities (who have been encouraged to pursue their group interests by a generation of American intellectuals) but also by the European-derived peoples of Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, the end result will be a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these peoples. ….
    ….The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of de-ethnicized individualism.

    If the analysis of anti-Semitism presented in SAID is correct, the expected
    reaction will emulate aspects of Judaism by adopting group-serving, collectivist ideologies and social organizations.”

    (my emphasis everywhere)
    ibid

  26. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 2, 2012 - 9:35 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Ayn Rand is better characterized by her own (dubious) school of thought, ie. objectivism. I prefer Mises, Rothbard and particularly Hoppe for political economics. I would also point out (and which most here seem to gliss over) that rivers-of-blood Powell was also a big admirer of Mises and Hayek.

    And yes, you’re quite right that most academics don’t take these thinkers seriously. But then thinking is not what social science is all about on campus.

    When I said libertarianism didn’t develop out of the highest levels of the classical tradition of our culture, and lacked really great thinkers, I was thinking of the fact that the Austrian school itself, which (while I don’t agree with a lot of their writings in the end) certainly does belong in that category, didn’t categorize themselves as libertarian. And certainly Powell didn’t either.

  27. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 2, 2012 - 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Hadding Scott:
    “It remains the case that there is no possible compromise between a doctrine of how to use government for the good and a doctrine that condemns anything beyond minimal use of de jure power as a matter of principle.”

    This is to misunderstand libertarianism, which does not condemn authority, nor preclude use of a comprehensive code of legal sanction, should there be express consent on the part of the contracting parties. That is, I see nothing wrong with a NS rule for those who explicitly agree to adhere to its covenant. Objectionable is the imposition of the code, not the code per se.

    Amish have a strict set of behaviours that I couldn’t abide, but good luck to them.

  28. icr's Gravatar icr
    March 2, 2012 - 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Here’s a brave guy who’s doing something positive:
    http://www.kctv5.com/story/17046125/parents-concerned-over-school-board-candidate

    On his Facebook page, Stephens is critical of the district curriculum, saying he has a problem with children learning about Martin Luther King Jr. before learning about their own customs or the white men who founded America.

    And it is comments like that which raise red flags for Joseph Porras, who has two kids in the school system.

    “Everyone is entitled to say what they want to say, but when it starts hurting other people then there is something wrong,” said Porras.

    But Stephens defends those comments.

    “I think we need to also pay attention to the white culture and white accomplishments. The vast majority of the Park Hill School District is white … it only makes sense to honor those things as well,” said Stephens.

  29. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 2, 2012 - 8:09 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks: I have trouble reconciling what you maintain about libertarianism with this excerpt from CofC:
    “Americans at the turn of the 19th century looked out on the world and saw their own society as superior to others. They saw themselves and other European societies as reaping the rewards of political and economic freedom while the rest of the world suffered as it had from time immemorial—the despotism of Asia, the barbarity and primitivism of Africa, and the economic and political backwardness of Russia and Eastern Europe.”

    p. xix, Preface to the Paperback Edition. Bold is mine.

  30. March 2, 2012 - 7:50 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    I had read Irving’s verification of the uncertainty over the authorship issues of Mein Kampf before, which is why I gave it credence.

    Believe that if you want, but the misrepresentation of the statement from Mein Kampf in Why We Fight is indisputable.

    It’s kind of funny how people either say that the book was trash or that such a brilliant book couldn’t possibly have been written by Hitler.

  31. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 2, 2012 - 7:29 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks: Strange that Irving would not have read Mein Kampf in its entirety.

  32. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 2, 2012 - 6:46 pm | Permalink

    @Mein Kampf / Hitler’s Second Book / Table Talk

    I think Strasser’s memoirs are still interesting, (unlike Rauschning he certainly was a close confidant of Hitler for a time) but I have read other accounts which state that there are often big problems with his reliability. I had read Irving’s verification of the uncertainty over the authorship issues of Mein Kampf before, which is why I gave it credence.

  33. March 2, 2012 - 4:44 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    And complaining about the U.S. Army film you don’t even mention that the Mein Kampf translation was done by the New School for Social Research

    Look again. I DID mention it. And in the previous post I exposed an egregious mistranslation of theirs. The reason why I quoted their translation is that it seems to be the one that was used in the film.

    … since Mein Kampf was mostly ghost-written for Hitler, by (as detailed by Otto Strasser) a Catholic priest who Hitler later treated badly for all his trouble. Another complaint about misrepresenting national socialist thought comes up empty handed.

    I’ve heard that claim before, but I don’t believe that it is the majority view even in a scholarly world that is overwhelmingly hostile to Hitler.

    Is the priest supposed to have written both books of Mein Kampf, which were published two years apart? And who wrote the so-called Zweites Buch? Who wrote his speeches for him? Is the Table Talk completely fake too? Did Hitler not really have such encyclopedic knowledge?

    Perhaps you are not aware that some of Hitler’s political enemies were vicious rumormongers (e.g. the rumor of Hitler’s father’s father being a Jew, debunked through DNA testing in 2009). Do you have a primary source for it other than the malcontent Otto Strasser?

    It seems gratuitously credulous of you to accept this rumor as fact. It’s hard to have a discussion with somebody that just believes whatever tickles his fancy.

  34. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 2, 2012 - 2:37 pm | Permalink

    @New blog post

    Interesting. And complaining about the U.S. Army film you don’t even mention that the Mein Kampf translation was done by the New School for Social Research, whose pedigree I’d think you’d be complaining about too.

    The thought of the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School: Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen Habermas, et al. holds an especially strong influence on all divisions of the school.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_School

    But I’m not sure if you’re summary complaint. “The words are altered in such a way that Hitler is represented as saying very nearly the opposite of what he did say” isn’t ultimately specious anyway, since Mein Kampf was mostly ghost-written for Hitler, by (as detailed by Otto Strasser) a Catholic priest who Hitler later treated badly for all his trouble. Another complaint about misrepresenting national socialist thought comes up empty handed.

  35. March 2, 2012 - 1:06 pm | Permalink

    Doesn’t it seem to you that with statements like, “The S.S. robots had no room for ideas,” that Klemperer is flaunting a lack of objectivity? That’s a flaming, shameless caricature. He’s sucking up to the established view.

    New blog post

  36. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 2, 2012 - 11:39 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:

    That’s quite a display of haughty condescension on your part. Very unjustified, I think.

    The misrepresentation of National-Socialism as contemptuous of ideas was an aspect of U.S. war-propaganda. I suppose that’s where you got this notion, directly or indirectly, since I see even professional historians — university professors — reproducing in their books alleged Hitler-quotes that are completely bogus.

    Well it was von Klemperer’s quote, which I’ll admit sounds like condensation and you certainly have the right for justification, as I certainly am the last one to advise ipso facto taking university professor’s/professional historians at face value, especially on matters such as this. Let’s look at von Klemperer’s argument in detail for which he provides quite a bit of documentation, which you are welcome to check out if you wish.

    The triumph of Hitler’s elite army, the S.S., which was the final outcome of the complex pattern of June 30, 1934, (commonly known as “The Night of Long Knives) shifted the basis of National Socialism from a political divide and rule and from an ideological eclecticism to a total reliance on its own power. The S.S. robots had no room for ideas, and least of all for those ideas with which National Socialism in the past had been connectd. nder the prodding of the S.S., then, the Party went through the process of “debunking of ideas” (Ideendämmerung) (Ref: Karl O. Patel, “Die S.S. Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des National-sozialismus,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte. II (1954) Paetel confirm that Heinrich himmler “saw to it that neither Oswald Spengler nor Moeller van den Bruck nor Othmar Spann ever became ideologically important for the work of the Party”.

    Already in December 1933 Alfred Rosenberg, Nazi “philosopher”, had come out in the Völkischer Beobachter against the various “untrusting and literary clubs” which claimed to be the fathers of National Socialism and even against the so far sacrosanct Moeller. (Ref: Alfred Rosenberg, Gegen Tarnung und Verfälschung,” Völkischer Beobachter, December 8, 1933, reprinted in Rosenberg, Gestaltung der Idee, 15ff.) What bitter irony that the neo-conservatives (again aka revcons) who in the past had so glibly labeled their enemies as “eggheads” (Literaten), were now the “eggheads” themselves. (Ref: various quotes from Thomas Mann, Moeller, and Spengler). One of the favorite themes of Das Schwarze Korps, the new S.S. organ launched in 1935, was the attack against the “intellectuals” (Ref: re Tat“Literarisches Nachtwächtertum,” Das Schwarze Korps, I (August 7, 1935), re Spann, “the pope of intellectualism” “Einer eird herausgegriffen,” Das Schwarze Korps, IV (December 8, 15, 22, 1938).

    Also from the S.S. came the first comprehensive attack against Moeller by one of its members, Wilhem Seddin. It appeared in the Hitler Youth periodical Wille und Macht . (Ref: Wihelm Seddin “Nachwort zu Moeller van den Bruck” Wille und Macht III (December 1, 1935). 1ff. Cf. also Wilhelm Seddin, Preussentum gegen Sozialismus (Berlin, 1935) which was directed against all non-party-line “intellectuals.” Based on Seddin’s attack: “Rechenschaft über Russland. Moeeler van den Bruck,” Bücherkunde, II (1935), 221f. Also”We have respected the author Moeller van den Bruck….. When however, one starts constructing an ideology from his works, we must turn our backs on Moeller and his epigones” (Ref: Seddin, “Nachwort,” Wille und Macht, III (December 1, 1935) I). In short, Moeller van den Bruck was also an “egghead” and the connection between him and National Socialism was based on “artificial manipulations” of his “advertising manager” Hans Schwarz (Ref: Seddin, “Nachwort,” Wille und Macht, III (December 1, 1935) I). A point by point refutation of Moeller which carried the imprimatur of the Party came to the bold conclusion that “conservatism and nationalism in reality have different values”. Moeller indeed was not the prophet of the Third Reich. He was the “last conservative” (Ref: Helmut Rödel, Moeller van den Bruck,/i> (Berlin 1939), 162, 164)

  37. March 2, 2012 - 6:50 am | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    Actually a lot of WN’s/libertarians would disagree with you. If Hitler worshiper Alex Linder or a bunch of his kin can declare themselves libertarian, or Junger can declare himself an “Anarch” without feeling the need to systematically repudiate his previous work, anybody can.

    Seems kind of unfair to invoke against me all this trash that really has nothing to do with what I said. The aspects of Adolf Hitler that people such as Alex Linder admire have nothing to do with national-socialism per se. Many Americans who think they admire Hitler — and I am not sure how applicable it is in Linder’s case — are really admiring the Hollywood caricature more than the reality. Hollywood represented a ruthless thug with no inhibitions, and since many Americans are criminals and sadists at heart. they are strongly attracted to that. It has nothing to do with the reality and nothing to do with me or anything that I represent, except insofar as it is a problem that has to be gotten out of the way.

    I don’t care about the fact that lots of people don’t concern themselves with being consistent. It remains the case that there is no possible compromise between a doctrine of how to use government for the good and a doctrine that condemns anything beyond minimal use of de jure power as a matter of principle. This could hardly be more obvious.

  38. March 2, 2012 - 6:04 am | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks: That’s quite a display of haughty condescension on your part. Very unjustified, I think.

    The misrepresentation of National-Socialism as contemptuous of ideas was an aspect of U.S. war-propaganda. I suppose that’s where you got this notion, directly or indirectly, since I see even professional historians — university professors — reproducing in their books alleged Hitler-quotes that are completely bogus.

    As for your comment about libertarianism, it’s what I’ve been saying.

  39. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 2, 2012 - 4:08 am | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks: Am I guilty of projection, or am I reading that you share my disdain for utilitarianism?

  40. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 2, 2012 - 4:02 am | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:
    Ayn Rand is better characterized by her own (dubious) school of thought, ie. objectivism. I prefer Mises, Rothbard and particularly Hoppe for political economics. I would also point out (and which most here seem to gliss over) that rivers-of-blood Powell was also a big admirer of Mises and Hayek.

    And yes, you’re quite right that most academics don’t take these thinkers seriously. But then thinking is not what social science is all about on campus.

  41. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    March 2, 2012 - 3:55 am | Permalink
  42. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    March 2, 2012 - 3:42 am | Permalink

    @Joe Webb:

    On black/white interracial marriage, I still believe the numbers are pretty low. Of course, it is a great long-term danger (although perhaps the greatest danger is mestizos and whitesas suchthis is).

    This is what Wikipedia says:
    In 2007, 4.6% of all married Blacks in the United States were wed to a White partner, and 0.4% of all Whites were married to a Black partner

    So the vast majority of marriages are between black women and white women,, of course. These are typically white women who are unable to get a white or even Hispanic man for whatever reason. If these numbers are true, we still have some time. I just don’t think the overwhelming vast majority of white women have the slightest interest in having half black babies.

  43. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 2, 2012 - 2:27 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:

    Alice Teller:
    My goal is roughly to find the proper balance between you and Trenchant.

    There is no compromise possible. Libertarianism does not represent a practical attempt to deal with reality, but rather a confused person’s attempt at making himself feel less confused by pretending that the world is simpler than it really is and drastically limiting ethical options.

    Actually a lot of WN’s/libertarians would disagree with you. If Hitler worshiper Alex Linder or a bunch of his kin can declare themselves libertarian, or Junger can declare himself an “Anarch” without feeling the need to systematically repudiate his previous work, anybody can. Just call your self a “fascist-libertarian”, “National Socialist – Libertarian” etc. It goes along with the basic opportunism of the liberal mind (and yes by George, a deep look at the thought even of National Socialism will find the roots of liberalism. Except that most National Socialists try to compensate by avoiding thought altogether, hence a basic component of National Socialism from 1934 on, the debunking of ideas (Ideendämmerung). Libertarians by contrast act by constructing systems of legalese and ideas so cumbersome they are guaranteed never to be practically exercised in a positive fashion.

    I do appreciate the work both you and the libertarians do put into your ideas, but sorry, I can’t take either of these systems of thought and philosophy as really worthy of serious intellectual consideration, and almost all serious academics seem to agree. The deepest thinker the NSDAP could come up of its own was Alfred Rosenberg, while for libertarians it is Ayn Rand. Rather than developing out of the classical tradition of our culture, both seem to be to be rather ad hoc rationalizations for the convenient and predetermined exercise of power. Especially as exercised in the English speaking world, they seem fatally compromised by that old bugaboo Moeller hit English liberalism with utilitarianism, in that the utilitarianism has manifested itself in the attitude toward culture and truth.

  44. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 2, 2012 - 12:36 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:

    I try to keep my exchanges with fanatical libertarians minimal because they are beyond reason. They are sure that nobody can be trusted with any power and that it’s morally wrong to have and use power, and that power is never really exercised for the good. How much frustrated power-lust and malevolence must be hiding behind such talk!

    I certainly agree with you on libertarians. They sort of epitomize the sort of thinking that Moeller lambasted so thoroughly in Das Dritte Reich and it still mystifies me how it could have even permeated supposedly traditionalist and White nationalist friendly forums. I think it in part is a reflection how thinking in general and political thinking in particular in the US is so degenerate even these movements have come to be thoroughly suffused with it. But in particular I think its penetration into hardcore WN National Socialist leaning circles shows how the extreme National Socialist “anti-intellectualism, mere intuition translated into violent action” is unable to deal with the most basic questions without recourse to its fuhrerprinzip. Catholicism means nothing more than readiness to blindly follow the Pope (or whoever else is in authority, fashionable, whatever) and when the Pope declares himself a Protestant, all his flock does the same in robot like fashion, without any consciousness of the absurdity.

    At any rate Moeller was full of pithy quotes describing this mentality.

    “It (this logic) showed all the characteristic signs of liberalism, which is prepared to endorse any contradiction and to look at any destruction with which the magic word of liberty can be any means be associated

    Liberalism began with a false idea of liberty, which it misunderstood even as it formulated it; and ended with a false idea of liberty which it employed no longer to defend liberty but to pursue advantage

    All human error lies here and many a crime”

    “The English always talked of freedom. They always sought their own freedom at the expense of everyone else’s. …..Hence the Englishman was free to assert his own right and trample on everyone else’s. ….. A certain slovenliness pervades liberal thought: everything is good if it can be termed “free” and twice good if it can be termed “useful” as well.

    Friedrich Hayek wrote:

    It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background.
    In other words Hayek was writing for a 100% deluded and misinformed readership. However flawed the essay may have been, anything that Hayek might say given such a starting point could only represent progress toward truth.

    Give me a break. Hayek’s essay ends up pinning National Socialist ideology on Spengler and Moeller, both of whom the NSDAP completely repudiated shortly after they achieved power. Klemperer describes the situation eloquently.

    In other words the Burchhardtians, however grudgingly, had to put up with the “terrible simplificateur”. Moeller’s principles notwithstanding and literally over Moeller’s dead body, the neo-conservatives (aka revcons) furnished the “intellectual supestructure” for a movement which was without ideas, principles, and indeed without a binding program.

    Meanwhile the Nazi Party played the two ends against the middle. While usurping the ideas of Moeller, Spengler, and Junger, it profited from lacking a basic theory and binding program of its own. Up to the year 1934 National Socialism was “action pure and simple, dynamics in vacuo, revolution at a variable tempo, ready to be changed at any moment.” It has been pointed out that the absence of a basic theory is one of the important differences between National Socialism and Bolshevism. While Lenin long before 1917 had committed himself to a definite program, Hitler remained a sphinx even after 1933. His “program”, the famous “Twenty-five Points,” going back to the year 1920, contained a hodgepodge of ferocious and pious “demands” which were designed to woo the most diverse elements in society.

  45. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 1, 2012 - 10:57 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott: Glad to oblige!

  46. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 1, 2012 - 10:45 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: I think that Washington the man would turn in his grave to see what has become of his vision of limited powers.

  47. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 1, 2012 - 10:16 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:
    Coming from a country that produced George Washington, I still think we can handle the good ones who become corrupted, even on rare occasions expect them to gracefully surrender power. It is the corrupted ones that are attracted to power who did us in. But nothing in certain in life except change – we live in interesting times.

  48. March 1, 2012 - 10:09 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    I guess it’s easier to go the Mad Hatter route, and make “ethical” whatever one wants it to mean. Expediency and ad hockery are the currency of the Beltway, so you’ll do just fine.

    This is the kind of flippant yet strained and transparently insincere condescension from you that just makes you annoying. It’s obvious that you have a sense of inferiority compared to somebody that lacks your hangups.

  49. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 1, 2012 - 9:37 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:
    On the variations amongst European peoples, I think you’re totally correct. There is indeed a continuum, and Hadding Scott should start in Sicily and make his way up to the Veneto region, before passing into Germany or Austria, noting the differences in people and culture along the way.

    Not everyone of European descent fits comfortably into lederhosen! There’s a world of Italian silk and fresco-lana, as well as that of loden.

  50. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 1, 2012 - 9:24 pm | Permalink

    Hadding Scott:
    “pretending that the world is simpler than it really is and drastically limiting ethical options.”

    I guess it’s easier to go the Mad Hatter route, and make “ethical” whatever one wants it to mean. Expediency and ad hockery are the currency of the Beltway, so you’ll do just fine.

  51. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 1, 2012 - 9:05 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:
    In fact, I’d gladly welcome your desired outcome, too, though I see it as unachievable as mine. Unrealizable in the sense that hoping politicians and state-servants will circumscribe their very own power is a big ask.

    And I agree with your version of Lord Acton, that power does tend to corrupt, and absolute power, absolutely.

  52. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 1, 2012 - 8:41 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:
    Hi Jason, I’m glad your back. I am genuinely mystified. I an not generally considered dense, but this beats me. There are times when I think we just get together you indulge in three minutes of hate. Which I even get, a necessary catharsis, if we ever move on and try to begin to at least develop a common vocabulary that allows us to talk to each other.

    Some days I think we are only interested in documenting our downfall for future historians. When it gets really strange, as it did the other day, I think we are all participating in some grad student’s experiment in group dynamics. By the way, for my part, the whole fiasco we witnessed the other day certainly proves that you are long overdue for some real and decent apologies. Keep up the good work.

  53. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 1, 2012 - 8:41 pm | Permalink

    @http://goo.gl/WszCG

    Jews have proved – in the diaspora – that the state structure is not necessary to maintain the group, quite the contrary. I believe that their nation-state will prove to be their undoing, and not their salvation.

    There is no getting around the reality that taxes are paid through the exercise of force, or the threat thereof. Any denial of that amounts to sophistry. If force is involved, then any moral argument likewise is irrelevant.

    On one of the common utilitarian arguments: turnpikes used to be almost exclusively private in the early days of the colony, and there’s no reason why that couldn’t be the case now, were it not for the state monopoly of town planning and regulatory oversight.

    And much as I dislike Rand for other reasons (hypocrite, pillorying non-Jews for racism whilst turning a blind eye to her own people), I can find nothing to criticize in this analysis of “group rights”. But it doesn’t matter what I think, when flash-mobbers or soccer hooligans strike and some are arrested, under the legal system they are charged as “individuals”, even if their behaviour may have been affected by some sense of group belonging.

    Hayek I don’t have a lot of time for; confused and inconsistent.

  54. March 1, 2012 - 8:28 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: I am not the one that has the flexibility problem: I’m no libertarian. If power somehow fell into my lap, I would use it.

  55. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    March 1, 2012 - 8:07 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    Another issue that is finally getting through to me is that many of the people posting on this site, while generally pro-white, have completely different ideas about how to go forward. I think this leads to a lot of acrimony that we might avoid if the differences were made explicit.

    Roughly speaking, some white advocates wanted to develop a message that will reach a large audience of millions of whites. That is, they roughly want to be part of the mainstream in the long run. I think the other camp has a completely different view. They believe that it is more valuable to create a “hard-core” group of strong believers in the cause and are not particularly interested in having a message that is palatable to a significant number of whites. I think this gets to the heart of a lot of our disputes.

    As far as keeping “the movement” small, I think there’s a legitimate argument for it (although I don’t think I agree with the) and then there is one that comes from what I would call a bad motivation. Anyway I’ll be thinking about this more and will be curious what others think, because I suspect this undergirds much of the conflict and distrust that erupted on the board. It’s just a hypothesis at this point but I think there’s something to it.

  56. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    March 1, 2012 - 7:56 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    I meant to say, that while most want checks and balances on those in power, we do recognize the need for some central government and the need to take action in certain well defined emergencies.

  57. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    March 1, 2012 - 7:54 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    I believe most white people, especially of Western European origin, want limited government that more or less conforms to what you’ve described. Almost none will embrace anarcho-libertarianism and on the other hand will most want severe checks and balances on those in power.

    Differing white populations will prefer variants along a continuum. Some (like the Anglo nations) will desire greater individual freedom while others (perhaps the Germans and the Swedish) will desire more of what is called a social welfare state. Beyond that, the debate may be interesting in some esoteric circles or to academicians, but it has little relevance to awakening white people to their impending demise.

    Your instincts are those of most white people when it comes to government.

  58. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 1, 2012 - 7:14 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:
    That solves my dilemma. Have you had this flexibility problem for long?

  59. March 1, 2012 - 6:02 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    My goal is roughly to find the proper balance between you and Trenchant.

    There is no compromise possible. Libertarianism does not represent a practical attempt to deal with reality, but rather a confused person’s attempt at making himself feel less confused by pretending that the world is simpler than it really is and drastically limiting ethical options.

  60. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 1, 2012 - 5:19 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:
    Of course it is. My goal is roughly to find the proper balance between you and Trenchant. If I had a magic wand, I would have minimum government power, closely watched, and far more authority returned to the family and local level. I guess I believe in the strong patriarchal family whose duty is to prepare decent people to be citizens of a republic. If I must allocate power, I prefer to choose to whom it is given. In my case, my husband.

    However, I can see where your position would have enormous value and appeal to those tribes of young men, not bad in themselves, simply raised with no decent male model, who are in need of clear cut, no nonsense, no fudging rules. It leaves me in something of a corner.

  61. March 1, 2012 - 4:45 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: I’m not asking for any trust. I think one of the reasons why Americans are afraid to empower anybody is that we are a bunch of crooks here and we know it. But that’s not as big a problem in all places at all times. To say that the exercise of power is never good is just insane.

  62. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    March 1, 2012 - 4:22 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:
    It doesn’t have to be power-lust. It may be our ancient traditions which tell us not only that power corrupts, but that it attracts the corrupted. Combine that with candidates from a society which lacks a coherent culture or religion and suffers from spiritual autism, and too much power sure scares me. You are asking for a lot of trust.

  63. March 1, 2012 - 2:58 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    Franklin and Hadding have allowed you to frame this discussion in terms of charity….

    I try to keep my exchanges with fanatical libertarians minimal because they are beyond reason. They are sure that nobody can be trusted with any power and that it’s morally wrong to have and use power, and that power is never really exercised for the good. How much frustrated power-lust and malevolence must be hiding behind such talk!

    Friedrich Hayek wrote:

    It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background.

    In other words Hayek was writing for a 100% deluded and misinformed readership. However flawed the essay may have been, anything that Hayek might say given such a starting point could only represent progress toward truth.

  64. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    March 1, 2012 - 10:26 am | Permalink

    @http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_group_rights

    That is why I always felt libertarianism really to be the polar opposite of nationalism. Moeller van den Bruck, felt the same way,

    Nations who ceased to feel themselves a people, who had lost the state-instinct, gave liberalism its opportunity.

    Moeller van den Bruck, Germany’s Third Empire, Chapter 3

    which helps explain why libertarian icon Friedrich Hayek, as I noted, had such a low opinion of him and mistakenly tried to blame a lot of National Socialism on him.

  65. March 1, 2012 - 8:52 am | Permalink

    @Merriam-Webster:

    Definition of Char-i-ty
    1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
    2 a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need
    b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor
    c : public provision for the relief of the needy
    3 a : a gift for public benevolent purposes
    b : an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
    4: lenient judgment of others

  66. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 1, 2012 - 6:44 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant: “warring with Iran“, though some would say a lapsus.

  67. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 1, 2012 - 6:37 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:
    “Some unsystematic, voluntary charity can help here and there but never everywhere”

    Quite true, which is why libertarianism promises no utopia, only non-interference. There will always be inequality of outcome as surely as men are of unequal talent or spirit or situation. And there is a finite amount of goodwill amongst men, regardless of political architecture.

    As for “essential” services, well, people will pay for them if they so be. For some, warring with Israel is an “essential service” no less than is supporting lesbian film studies for someone else, fire-fighting someone else again’s choice. Great, let them dig out the money for their own essentials from their own pockets, not mine. And then I’ll decide on my very own which, if any, causes I wish to support.

    The utopia, as we see all too well before our very eyes, is that any semblance of natural justice can be dispensed by a monopoly-provider of justice. Who judges the judges?

  68. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    March 1, 2012 - 5:23 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Charity and coercion are mutually exclusive.

    The way you frame it that may indeed seem so, but what is so outrageous about public services payed by taxes? Following are the public services that are universally accepted at the cost of the community : all governmental functions, police and judiciary, defence and infrastructure. Following are the public services that are accepted at the cost of the community in some but rejected in other countries : healthcare, education, old age pensions, welfare, subsidies for cultural activities (including religion). It depends on the culture of a country whether it wants to adopt a minimalist or a maximalist state interference model, but interference there will be. Mostly a minimalist model offers great freedom but with great risks, while a maximalist model offers little freedom with little risks. If you belong to the “happy few” you can take care of your own risks, if not too bad. Some unsystematic, voluntary charity can help here and there but never everywhere. But that is exactly the libertarian ideal! State interference is only a kind of lottery with misfortune as a reason for payement. It is no more outrageous than an obligatory car insurance.

  69. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 1, 2012 - 5:06 am | Permalink

    Hadding Scott’s “systematized charity” would come under the rubric of Will Fredericks’ “rabbinical dialectics” I imagine.

  70. March 1, 2012 - 4:17 am | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    Why shouldn’t it puzzle me that you don’t recognize and find bad the great and frequent use enemies of the white world and especially Germany find in dredging up the Nazi past

    If looking at National-Socialist ideas is “dredging” then what would be the proper verb to describe interest in these relatively unimportant “revolutionary conservatives”? Scraping perhaps?

    Funny that you use the word distortion. There is obvious distortion in your thinking when National-Socialism is a problem for you but National-Bolshevism is not. You think that the National-Bolsheviks would have been more “civilized” than the National-Socialists? That’s crazy. But of course Hollywood never told us to think badly of National-Bolshevism, whereas National-Socialism is the ultimate evil.

    I am not going to pick apart your negative comments about National-Socialism except to say that they can be credited to the fact that your thought-processes are subordinated to the establishment’s old war-propaganda. I would say that you “make the work of the neocons, Wiesenthal Center, SPLC associated historians easier” by perpetuating that mental servitude and treating it as legitimate.

  71. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 1, 2012 - 3:45 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:
    Charity cannot be “systematized”. Charity and coercion are mutually exclusive; children have no problem realizing that they can be forced to appease, but not to like. “Consistent” with the authoritarian’s dictates? No thanks.

    Your argument is purely ends-justifies-means. And if that’s the case, why waste time discussing and trying to convince? Just muscle up and grab the power – it’s just waiting for you!

  72. February 29, 2012 - 4:43 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Because if we don’t force people to care for their brethren on pain of incarceration, they might not. That sounds coherent.

    I don’t think it really needs to be explained that some people will help others voluntarily and some won’t, and some that need help won’t get it. If charity is systematized and made a function of the whole community, the burden and the benefits can be more consistently distributed. This is something that even small children understand. It’s only libertarians that don’t understand that.

  73. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 29, 2012 - 2:47 am | Permalink

    @noted before

    Therefore, according to Neier, post-Rockwell Nazism evolved into a newspaper sensation cleverly related to the needs of other organisations, particularly Zionists.

    American Nazism In The Context Of The American Extreme Right: 1960 – 1978: Jim Saleam – Chapter Two, The Rockwell Period 1958-67

    As to von Klemperer, I don’t think it is just “guilt-ridden Germans” who need to find “good Germans” of the era, and believe it or not not everyone is like you willing to put men like Himmler, Goering, or Goebbels into that category. True, he is a professional historian and philosopher, which means he is probably not going to be content with trying to decipher meaning in a movement who could put out nothing more profound or honest than Alfred Rosenberg or had no philosophical antecedents other than Paul Gobineau or Houston Stewart Chamberlain, but I can’t really fault him there.

    I have no idea though how you could have come to the conclusion von Klemperer’s study of the revolutionary conservatives came out his search for “good Germans”. He would certainly not characterize the revcons in this manner. Although maybe as a matter of national pride he was still interested in finding Germans who at least were smart and articulate, more so than the typical “stormtrooper at a rally mentality” your kinfolk are principally interested in. While being a good firsthand source he does have his own agenda one needs to take into account, but you’re nowhere near being close to it.

  74. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    February 29, 2012 - 12:09 am | Permalink

    The guy in the video cracks me up. It’s also true that when one listens to the left in this country, you could almost boil their basic message down to–“everything will be fine, if you just won’t smoke and wear a condom. The basic restrictions to follow in being a good leftist are, “don’t smoke and wear a condom,” everything else is O.K.

  75. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 28, 2012 - 9:29 pm | Permalink

    Ramzpaul on positive rights, cornerstone of all socialist models, versus negative rights, that of old-right conservatism/libertarianism.

  76. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 28, 2012 - 8:48 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott: Because if we don’t force people to care for their brethren on pain of incarceration, they might not. That sounds coherent.

    I might add that Bismarck’s universal schooling prepared working class lads to die for the glory of the nation-state, and that the model was copied everywhere to disastrous effect. Hordes of young men eagerly volunteered to die in WWI, in a way that never before had happened previously.

    The public school brainwashing is championed by all of today’s despots, Bismarck’s rightful heirs.

  77. February 28, 2012 - 8:24 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant: Yes, it was necessary.

  78. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    February 28, 2012 - 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Hadding Scott:
    “Otto von Bismarck, the great German conservative, was the inventor of the modern welfare-state.”

    Yeah, great invention, that.☻

  79. February 28, 2012 - 2:15 pm | Permalink

    I don’t [see why] those of us that don’t have that complex of problems …

  80. February 28, 2012 - 2:13 pm | Permalink

    As for Rauschning and his claims of alleged conversations with Hitler, of course he was a liar. I said that. But evidently he was a liar who read a lot of Nietzsche because he put Nietzsche’s words and ideas into his lying book. I didn’t make up the claim that Rauschning was a typical revcon or that he belonged to the DNVP. This is information that I found online.

    @Will Fredericks:

    Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black, how much can one coming from a National Socialist worldview really say about undistorted senses of words or principles ?

    I must have really gotten under your skin with my questions and points, to receive a completely gratuitous insult like that.

    Certainly a lot if not most mainstream writings on the era, liberal, neo-con (today’s version), etc., treat not only the revcons but anything German of that era as ancillary to National Socialism. I am not sure why you or other National Socialists both find yourselves, and think you can represent to other nationalists and traditionalists, that this is such a good thing.

    What puzzles me is why you think it should be otherwise. I don’t think I’ve seen an explanation of that. I understand that in Klemperer’s case he’s a guilt-ridden German and a professional historian with the accompanying strait-jacket on his mind, and he needs to find “good Germans.” So basically Klemperer is driven into these obscure corners by guilt and desperation. I don’t those of us that don’t have that complex of problems should regard this fringe political movement from the Weimar period as more interesting or more useful or even more palatable than National-Socialism. That’s what I’ve been asking. You don’t seem to have an answer.

  81. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 28, 2012 - 11:48 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:

    What Klemperer is saying in effect is that the National-Socialists were more conservative (in the most undistorted sense of the word) than these revolutionary conservatives.

    Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black, how much can one coming from a National Socialist worldview really say about undistorted senses of words or principles ?

    For a revcon like Rauschning to call the NSDAP’s rise to power a “revolution of nihilism” seems to be very much the pot calling the kettle black. In order to justify that label, as is well established, Rauschning falsely attributed a lot of Nietzschean statements to Hitler. Those nihilistic statements, which probably represented Rauschning’s own views given that these revcons are supposed to be so brutally honest, ended up being featured in American anti-Hitler propaganda.

    One thing about the legacy of the destruction of the gotterdamm is that those that color our interpretation of the revolutionary conservatives today seem heavily weighted toward those that physically survived the epoch, like Jünger and Rauschning, especially those like Rauschning who were predisposed and able to take their case to the English-speaking world in a sustained way. I think it is generally understood that Rauschning’s writings are seriously flawed. I think it is a mistake to rely on him for reliable insight on the era, as I think you do as well. I am not sure if you acknowledge Rauschning was so erroneous on the Third Reich why you rely on him so much for understanding of the revolutionary conservatives.

    This Klemperer (professor emeritus at Smith College) seems to be very interested in the German resistance to Hitler, which is a framework in which the revcons might seem important. Without the post-war obligation to condemn N-S and find “good Germans” that opposed it, I think the revcons would probably be treated as only ancillary to the study of N-S.

    Certainly a lot if not most mainstream writings on the era, liberal, neo-con (today’s version), etc., treat not only the revcons but anything German of that era as ancillary to National Socialism. I am not sure why you or other National Socialists both find yourselves, and think you can represent to other nationalists and traditionalists, that this is such a good thing.

  82. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    February 28, 2012 - 5:12 am | Permalink

    @fender: fender, so help me, you anticipated what I left out in my post but had thought of putting in– the pre-Socratic Greek thought that Nietzsche returned to. Too bad it was cut off when Socrates and Plato put the emphasis on moral issues rather than the natural world, science might be much further advanced.

  83. February 28, 2012 - 2:08 am | Permalink

    I just included a link on “American anti-Hitler propaganda” that probably won’t work for most people. Here’s the proper link.

  84. February 28, 2012 - 2:02 am | Permalink

    @American anti-Hitler propaganda.

    This Klemperer (professor emeritus at Smith College) seems to be very interested in the German resistance to Hitler, which is a framework in which the revcons might seem important. Without the post-war obligation to condemn N-S and find “good Germans” that opposed it, I think the revcons would probably be treated as only ancillary to the study of N-S.

  85. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 27, 2012 - 9:40 pm | Permalink

    @William:

    Thank you for the links and tips. That EJ had a ‘wordly’ side is known to us (though not so much as his detached aspect): his Great War experiences, his entomological and botanical interests, his erotic dalliances with Parisian females during the second war, the drug experiments (LSD, hashish, mescaline), his deep-sea fishing safaris off the coast of East Africa, to name a few.

    It is interesting how a picture of how age made a “kinder and gentler” Jünger emerging is starting to emerge. To begin with maybe that quote I had on Jünger should be modified slightly

    But what a transformation in Jünger!. Whereas in 1914 he had volunteered to seek danger, now he sought refuge. …. And while Jünger’s superiors prepared for the coup, he who objected to political assassinations, was allowed to devote himself to his esoteric interests and tastes and speculate about the sufferings of mankind. …. and dallying with Parisian prostitutes, while preparing for a tough apres guerre life where he add things like drugs and deep sea fishing to his repertoire of exotic interests and tastes

    Interesting how we see Jünger’s great warrier ethos, who fought “against the eternal Utopia of peace, the pursuit of happiness, and perfection” (“Der heroische Realismus”, Literarische Welt(1930)) softening with age. I’m not sure exactly what happened personally to this great adventure lover, this avowed spokesman for all “conspirators”, “prisoners”, “saboteurs”, “adventurers”, and “soldiers of fortune” .

    But I suspect somewhere along the way it might have had something to do with finding out it is more fun to shoot than to be shoot at, and even more fun just to write about these things, or cultivate his repertoire of esoteric interests. It is similarly often more fun to talk and posture about revolutions against decadent democracy and bourgeois life than to live in the society that has replaced such. It is fun to watch a regiment marching off to battle (giving the “impression of blood, roses, and splendid tears”, but it isn’t much fun, let alone adventure to face being tortured by the Gestapo for a risky and sure to be under-appreciated, even if for once genuinely worthy, adventure. Seems to me he might have discovered “the eternal Utopia of peace, the pursuit of happiness, and perfection” wasn’t as bad as he thought, and even if it was it was better to watch someone else fighting against it than to do it yourself.

    Jünger I think in some ways seems to typify the peculiar characteristics of the extremes of this era of Nietzschien writers. He exemplifies their’s and Nietzsche’s gifts for great rhetoric and interesting insights, but he also at times to exemplify Nietzsche’s tendency toward what is ultimately just overstated and overblown posturing and at worst just plain spiritually ersatz puffery.

  86. fender's Gravatar fender
    February 27, 2012 - 8:47 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby:

    Yeah, I agree. The positives outweight the negatives. He did a great service to Western philosophy by bringing back pre-Socratic Greek thought. Still, he wouldn’t like any of us on here. But then again, so what?

  87. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    February 27, 2012 - 7:53 pm | Permalink

    @fender: Your points are fair enough on Nietzsche’s downside, but my main assertion is that he was a thinker far ahead of his time, and he won’t go away, because he is a kind of mirror to how man and society in general, are still stumbling around in the dark, because of our eternally recurring “lipservice” on our inability to accept the reality of certain things about ourselves we just won’t face.

  88. fender's Gravatar fender
    February 27, 2012 - 7:29 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby:

    But Nietzsche wasn’t without his faults, either. In fact he suffered from the same delusion that 99% of Whites suffer from today: a hatred of ethnic nationalism when it came to Europeans, and a deep respect for the ethnic nationalism of Jews. Nietzsche may have despised the New Testament and the idea of Europeans worshipping Jewish historical figures, but he considered the Old Testament to be the greatest work of literature ever. He also openly welcomed Jewish control of Europe because he felt they were liberating Europeans from Christianity (he completely didn’t understand that all they were really doing was putting Europe under another slave morality, liberalism). And finally, let’s not forget that he eventually blew a fuse and spent the last ten years of his life being cared for by his loving sister, whom he despised only because she was an “antisemite” in his view.

    Brilliant philosopher otherwise? Maybe. HIs views on power, psychology, strength, morality, and people in general are astounding. Some of his other views, however, either don’t make much sense or are just completely bonkers, like his idea of Christianity being Jewish “spiritual vengeance” against the Romans. Christianity may have been harmful to the European spirit but there’s no way it was a conspiracy among the Jews. Also, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is far too hyperbolic and Biblical to be taken seriously; sometimes I even wonder if Nietzsche wrote it as a parody. Nietzsche has his uses, but in terms of nationalism I think Yukio Mishima is a far better model. He was not European, but he was greatly influenced by Greek art and philosophy, and achieved in Japan a level of admiration and respect that no White man has in our countries.

  89. blue rose's Gravatar blue rose
    February 27, 2012 - 6:41 pm | Permalink

    ooops I really messed up that post. I forgot to turn off italics and remove the last two paragraphs.

  90. blue rose's Gravatar blue rose
    February 27, 2012 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby:

    I simply don’t see it. With the increasing trashing of the only viable place humanity can live, for now, I believe we are actually going backwards and fast.

    Yes and no. The mainstream who still believe in their ideologies of all sorts are going backwards and fast. But a new culture silently works alongside it, building an integrated philosophy, a new Spirituality, a new awareness of Mother Earth and living in harmony with it. I see already new ideas being tried out. The Lightworkers work with Sacred Geometry and the world’s sacred sites to open portals for the Christ Consciousness to manifest. Sacred Geometry is encoded in the New Testament. I read about it somewhere, the vesica piscis (having to do with the fishes and loaves), and was dumbfounded. I emailed someone I consider a true mage asking him about it, and he replied everyone but the Christians knows that Sacred Geometry is encoded in the New Testament. Who put it there?

    There is a thing the Lightworkers stress — not to let fear enter in. Somehow I have hope for the Nietzsche’s Übermensch. The way is being prepared. Believe.

    it’s only to enlighten the corrupt elite , who no doubt to me at all , have all kinds of things they are not sharing at present, (stem cell therapy, genetic investigations, horrible pathogens for their own purposes, etc)

    It’s well known, these ruses of the Elites. All their new developed technology and all we get are Viagra commercials and commercials for new sex lubricants promising fireworks for real (I even saw they used two lesbians in one of these commercials) and we will soon be given new technologies for upcoming 3D and 4D movies to amuse ourselves with.

    Übermensch. I may have read his book when a teen, but I don’t remember. Anyway the title alone would have attracted me, so probably I did. I keep confusing that book with another mystical book I read, the name of which I can’t remember.

    I read the link you provided for the book and the smaller information at the wiki link. Curiously, there is a lot of biblical ideas that Nietzsche p

  91. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 27, 2012 - 5:16 pm | Permalink

    @William:

    And yet again, an essay opened to a discussion on practical solutions devolves into pointless comments on umlauts and the relative merits of DNVP vs. NSDAP.

    LOL! You can’t make this sh*t up.

    I thought the umlaut’s discussion was quite useful – now you and I can correctly spell Jünger or whatever you want German word on an English language keyboard. ;)

    As to the DNVP vs. NSDAP argument, it was Hadding’s point about the DNVP, but I detect more generally you’re point is about arcaneness in general. Like I note above it was a criticism of the time as well of the revolutionary conservatives in general re:

    “wore themselves out in brotherhoods and conventicles, in true German fashion, with problems which led them far from the political issues of the day into a maze of esoteric ideologies and doctrines” But he adds

    The fact that the neo-conservative movement (his term for the revolutionary conservatives) never crystallized into one political organization should not, however, detract from its significance. In the years immediately following the war it became an important factor in molding public opinion by means of its frequent publications, clubs, and circles and its network of personal relations cutting across party lines. A study of the movement and its course not only introduces us to one of the most critical phases in the history of German conservatism but also raises for us the question of how and why the Weimar Republic came to be an orphan republic.”

    As I noted in my piece the conventional wisdom is of people like Fromm, that all Germans except the hard left were all just conservatives aka proto-Nazi’s all along anyway because of our conservative history, and the answer is to reject western conservatism and if not that at least absolutely western nationalism. If after reading his opinion you are still on the bus and haven’t decided to declare your a liberal libertine, then like I say you do have harder questions to answer, which means taking a look the developments of this time. These people after all seriously attempted to establish nationalism, and those of us who try to do the same today find it instructive to look at their efforts.

    Not just for better or worse we’re stuck with their failures as well as successes (such as the legacy of the Third Reich and its defeat) and will all be compared with the Third Reich anyway. Its also instructive to look at today’s neo-conservative movement (no relation to the above term and movement). People looking at their arguments, say over some arcane point of Straussian philosophy, or for that matter related academic discussions of critical theory (which Kevin MacDonald notes was often written in a “Hegelian fashion”) might find them equally arcane. When you realize how scarce are neighborhoods in the western world which have not been turned into a third world cesspool because of critical theory arguments, or find today’s neo-conservatives are getting ready to persuade the POTUS to drop the big on on Iran (and vice versa dropping it on us) out of their derived Straussian hodge-podge, study of their writing maybe doesn’t seem quite so arcane.

  92. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 27, 2012 - 3:49 pm | Permalink

    @Wikipedia article (“Conservative Revolutionary movement”) doesn’t seem the best reference, rather influenced by later conceptions of the movement, it seems to give leading influence to Rauschning, who, at the time, while involved does need seem very prominent at all, and includes Carl Schmidt, who was not part of the movement at all.

    Fundamentally the revolutionary conservatives were not tied to organized political parties. Part of this was their personal bent, and part of this was there general lack of acceptance of the Weimar Republic, (which this spell checker wants to spell as Wiemar for some reason), and the subsequent pontification against “the rule of parties etc. For this, they were categorized as the “homeless right” Rauschning and others repeatedly called them “officers without an army” and criticized them because they

    wore themselves out in brotherhoods and conventicles, in true German fashion, with problems which led them far from the political issues of the day into a maze of esoteric ideologies and doctrines

    Rauschning in Revolution of Nihlism, p.111

    Eventually however the political fray did start to draw them in more concretely, and they basically were divided into three groups in terms of their political affiliation, roughly from right to left; the “Young Conservatives”, the conservatives of the Tat circle, and the “Radical Conservatives”. The Young Conservatives, such as Edgar Jung, split from the DNVP in 1929 (basically from the obstinately anti-republican DNVP factions) and 1930 and founded the People’s Conservative Association
    (Volkskonservative Vereinigung) and the Conservative People’s Party (Konservative Volkspartie), the Christian Socialist People’s Service (Christlichsozilalizer Volksdienst), and the Christian National Peasant’s Party
    (Deutches Landvolk). All of them fared poorly in the September 1930 election, (dominated by the National Socialists and Communists) although they retained influence due to their connections outside parliament (such as with President Hindenburg).

    The Tat circle remained more of a literary movement, opposing both the Young Conservatives for being reactionary and joining the Bruning government, and the National Socialists out of what basically seems to have amounted to snobbery. They were however involved in proposals for a revolution from above with General Schleicher and Gregor Strasser.

    Finally you had the “Radical Conservatives” who “were extreme Rightists, extreme Leftists or indeed, both”. They including people like Otto Strasser and his Black Front, and the Ernst Niekisch, who left the SPD in the mid twenties and founded the National Bolshevik Resistance Movement.

    Let me get this straight. Juenger was for National-Bolshevism, but that’s really a expression of conservatism, and it’s good? Why should an American consider this to be better or more relevant than National-Socialism?

    First like I you said “this German conservatism was not the same as what Americans consider conservative”. It certainly was different than Anglo-Saxon conservatism of then let alone now, and didn’t care much a whit for Adam Smith or Milton Friedman if he’d been there. (which I and I don’t think you either consider as bad). Secondly, as I wrote in my article “Of all the revolutionary conservatives, (the early) Jünger’s writings in many ways are the most problematic” including for the other revolutionary conservatives”, if you must concisely sum it up he was not very conservative and certainly was anything but “good” (as one would expect a radical “Beyond Good and EvilNietschzien).

    As to why they are more relevant than National Socialism, I’ll just close with another quote from von Klemperer.

    We ought not to minimize the seriousness and integrity of people like Niekisch. The National Bolsheviks were more honest, more thorough, more penetrating in their criticism of our society than the Nazi’s. However, by talking in terms of “the curse of liberty”, and boastfully chiding “the ideal of humanity” while praising “barbarism”, they one one hand took conservatism to the point of no return, while on the other hand their rigid doctrinaire position was easily outmaneuvered by the National Socialist Party.

  93. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    February 27, 2012 - 3:42 pm | Permalink

    @blue rose: blue rose, I forgot to add, that I disagree completely with what you wrote about Nietzsche’s ideas coming true as to our coming enlightement. I simply don’t see it. With the increasing trashing of the only viable place humanity can live, for now, I believe we are actually going backwards and fast. All the techonological advances are used for every stupid reason, rather than for enlightenment, and if they are used for enlightenment, it’s only to enlighten the corrupt elite , who no doubt to me at all , have all kinds of things they are not sharing at present, (stem cell therapy, genetic investigations, horrible pathogens for their own purposes, etc)

  94. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    February 27, 2012 - 3:25 pm | Permalink

    @blue rose: I absolutely loved your description of the Catholic Mass. I grew up with Catholicism, and was educated by very strict nuns. Being a wayward, Catholic, that hadn’t attended mass for many, many years, your description brought the feeling back to me and was so very accurate.

    Friedrich Nietzche, 1844-1900, was possibly one of the deepest thinkers ever, on the general condition of humanity. His critque of human kinds ways are so devastating, that most teachers of philosophy don’t like to spend much time on him, and certainly do not relish what he claimed about mankind, exactly because everyone instinctivly knows he was right. Having lived during the beginning of the golden era of Europe and Germany, in particular, he saw, when he traveled through Europes major cities, the bombast, the hypocrisy, and the flowery and phony ways of that time. Amid the beauty and elegance of places like Paris, Vienna, etc., was also grinding poverty, and the general unconcern of the elite towards it. Nietzche is a scary philosoopher and subject to study, because he so convincingly nails us, on all of our phony ideals and goals. He is however, the most relevant thinker for this age, since if anything, we have long ago exceeded the Europe of the time he lived in, in our cowardness, dishonesty, pretensions and general ignorance.

  95. February 27, 2012 - 1:35 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks: I don’t claim to be an expert on the Weimar period in general.

    To which political party do you think the revolutionary conservatives gravitated most in the 1920s, if not the DNVP? It was the party of Rauschning, whom Wikipedia calls a typical revcon.

    Let me get this straight. Juenger was for National-Bolshevism, but that’s really a expression of conservatism, and it’s good? Why should an American consider this to be better or more relevant than National-Socialism?

    I am ready to be completely surprised by your answers.

  96. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 27, 2012 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:

    Well first you’re casting an awfully big net if you put the revolutionary conservatives and DNVP together in it, especially Jünger, who supported (albeit rather quietly) Niekisch’s National Bolshevik Resistance Movement

    If Juenger supported the National-Bolsheviks then I don’t know why he’s called conservative. That puts him very much to the left of Hitler. If we are talking about conservatives, the DNVP was the main conservative party in the Weimar (not “Wiemar”) period. Hermann Rauschning is supposed to have been a typical “revolutionary conservative” and he just happens to have been a member of the DNVP.

    You’re still stuck on the DNVP as substantially representing German conservatism, which as I noted in the above post which I partially requoted it did not, certainly not the revolutionary conservatives, although they certainly still shared some of its sentiments. It’s confusing to people and its a mistake in many ways you of all people should know better, starting with your previous remark

    I will point out that this German conservatism was not the same as what Americans consider conservative. What Americans call conservatism, Moeller van den Bruck condemned as liberalism. Liberalism (our conservatism) destroys nations, he wrote. Otto von Bismarck, the great German conservative, was the inventor of the modern welfare-state.

    In particular you seem puzzled how a National Bolshevik sympathizer like Jünger could be considered a conservative. Jünger in fact was no exception, von Klemperer writes “by 1930, National Bolshevism became the prevailing mood among the Rightist intellegentsia. For many German nationalists and particularly for those affected by the economic crisis, even National Socialism came to mean a compromise”. It was in part the end result of a historically anti-western trend in German conservatism, which was sharpened by WWI, still strengthened by Versailles, and received a final big push from the
    economic crisis of the great depression. The revolutionary conservatives had varying and often equivocal stances on National Bolshevism and overtures by the K.P.D. (what Stalin privately called “a grandiose diversion”) that they form an anti-western front together against Versailles, reparations, the Young Plan etc., but it was by no means rejected out of hand.

    And talk about replacing the NSDAP with the DNVP is in a post 1918 sense irrelevant

    Of course, as I said, the DNVP could not have won an election! But the idea of replacing the NSDAP with the DNVP has some relevance if you are going to argue that Juenger should have supported the assassination of Adolf Hitler, insofar as the leader of that conspiracy, Goerdeler, was former DNVP. It seems to me that this would have amounted to a DNVP coup, more or less. A lot of the discontents in the Third Reich (e.g. the libeler Hermann Rauschning, the religious fanatic Martin Niemoeller) were former DNVP.

    You certainly ride that DNVP hobby. The history of the 1944 coup is complex and I’m not an expert, but I’d never heard it called “a DNVP coup” before. In fact the plot leaders planned to install a coalition government including leaders from the Center and and Social Democratic parties. Undoubtedly many of the leaders, being as they were high ranking Army officers, had ties with the DNVP, but I think that is about all you can say.

    You are right though in a sense, to connect the 1944 plot with conservative opposition to Hitler. Von Klemperer says not only but also the events of 1934 commonly known as “The Night of Long Knives” amounted to conservative frondes against National Socialism. The 1934 events were triggered by the Marburg speech by von Papen. Both von Papen and his deputy Jung, who wrote the speech (and was executed) were however members of the Center Party, not the DNVP. Their’s and the other revolutionary conservatives affiliations consisted in such things as membership in the June Club (based in Berlin), which along with journals like Tat were considered the center of revolutionary conservative activity and thinking, but certainly not the DNVP, which most of them rejected.

  97. February 27, 2012 - 10:40 am | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:I am halfway admitting that but I still think the fact that Juenger refused to say that On the Marble Cliffs was about the Third Reich pulls the chair out from under people who want to say unambiguously that that’s what it is, but Juenger didn’t exclude that interpretation either. What you can discern in his statement that it is “a shoe that fits various feet” is at least the view that Hitler was not a unique evil.

  98. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 27, 2012 - 10:10 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:

    Not sure how accurate this is, but German Wikipedia presents a more complicated picture. It says that Reichsleiter Philipp Bouler petitioned for the indexing (Indizierung, which I think is a Catholic euphemism for banning) of On the Marble Cliffs, and that Goebbels asked for Juenger to be detained, but that Hitler personally intervened to protect Juenger.

    It agree it is still not entirely straightforward, but it decidedly goes against the grain of your earlier assertion that

    the book was freely published in 1939 Germany and apparently not perceived as subversive.

  99. Anty Ep's Gravatar Anty Ep
    February 27, 2012 - 10:07 am | Permalink

    I read Storm of Steel and loved it. But I fail to see the relevance to us today in America. I also love to read another Nouvelle Droit fave, Julius Evola. But the practical side of me– the one that writes the checks and gets stuff done– says that we don’t need a lot of aristocratic apoliteia for romantic individualists, but, more organizational development focus, more task-orientation, more cooperative resource development, and so forth. The quotidien chores which are and will be necessary for the building a social movement and organization that actually can provide a consistent, reliable, and effective voice of leadership for white-gentiles in America, that is not run or coopted by Jews,

    In this regard, Hitler was the one that made the NSDAP effective because the man had a talent for leadership that was not just getting up and making stirring speeches, but the talent of a man who helped build a tiny party into something that won the support of voters in a large, complicated and advanced nation, and then once in power proceeded to provide real solutions to pressing social needs in a way that was absolutely remarkable for its effectiveness.

    It is easy for the ENR/ Nouvelle Droit of today to dismiss the NSDAP as a plebian mass lead by a demagogue and that is a lot of what I have read. I think that is pandering to the accepted opinions of today.

    A better project for the VIP “valuable intellectual properties” would be to seriously analyze how NS followed and supplanted CR in Germany and why, and what lessons if any that may hold for our own particular situation here. If the lessons are not applicable, then we should consign Ernst Jünger to our private fun reading time and not worry about his “anarch” idea overmuch.

  100. February 27, 2012 - 10:01 am | Permalink

    @European: Thank you.

  101. blue rose's Gravatar blue rose
    February 27, 2012 - 6:10 am | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks:

    Blue Rose, I was just referring to the Nietzschien orientation of Spengler in particular (Thomas Mann called Spengler “Nietzsche’s clever ape”) and the revolutionary conservatives. The metaphor arises from Friedrich Nietzsche’s
    Thus Spoke Zarathustra

    Oh I get it. OK Thanks. You were just including the women: Zarathustra’s ‘Last Wo(Man)’. Kind of a play on words.

    The Last Man (‘The last man is tired of life, takes no risks, and seeks only comfort and security’), as compared to his future Übermensch. I may have read his book when a teen, but I don’t remember. Anyway the title alone would have attracted me, so probably I did. I keep confusing that book with another mystical book I read, the name of which I can’t remember.

    I read the link you provided for the book and the smaller information at the wiki link. Curiously, there is a lot of biblical ideas that Nietzsche presented in ‘Thus Spake’, whether he realized it or not. But the ideas he spoke of are never revealed in Christian Churches – those things Nietzsche observed about what dwells within the heart of human beings. He is correct here also:

    The creator seeks companions, and such as know how to whet their sickles. They will be called destroyers, and despisers of good and evil. But they are the reapers and rejoicers.

    Luke 22:36 [Jesus speaking]
    But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.

    Jesus said also one must be willing to leave all behind (including family) in order to follow Him.

    In Part 2 of the online version, Nietzsche was both right and wrong in his ideas about the Church. He seems to confuse Christianity with Judaism, like where he says:

    And they knew not how to love their God otherwise than by nailing men to the cross!

    It was the Jews that did this — not the Gentiles.

    Nietzsche didn’t seem to understand the meanings inside a Traditional Catholic Church either. The darkness when one enters, then one becomes aware of light filtering through the colors of stain-glass windows, the coldness, solidity and strength of the carved columns as one passes one’s hands over them, the heady scent of ever present frankincense, the glow of soft candles to announce the small sanctuaries of certain saints and Mary (maybe even Mary Magdelene) with their soft kneelers where one may meditate upon the images — all these things and so much more were esoteric evoking a sacredness, a lifting up beyond. When leaving the Church after a Traditional Mass, one when encounters the fresh air, a sense that one had been transported to the Heavens and one is filled with a sacred grace, all too real.

    But I agree with Nietzsche that religion is a man-made thing with man-made dogmas, except for Jesus Christ, who was an Ascended Master that manifest from time to time on Earth, the boddivistas , like Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha. There is a reason why the middle years of Jesus’s life are missing from the Bible. Many believe he traveled to India during that time.

    Nietzsche’s beautiful ideas about the Übermensch that is mankind’s destiny are coming true. Humanity is evolving towards a more integrated Spirituality, a Christ Consciousness, that includes the Mother Earth Consciousness, and the consciousness of the suffering of the Animal Kingdom. The forerunner’s to Nietzsche’s Übermensch are the Lightworkers, those who are activating the planetary grids from the world’s sacred sites and who are working on all levels for planetary change.

  102. European's Gravatar European
    February 27, 2012 - 2:09 am | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:

    It is not all that complicated if you can read and understand German as German.

    1945 bis 1949
    Das Jünger-Haus in Wilflingen
    Ernst Jüngers Schreibtisch in Wilflingen
    Nach dem Krieg weigerte sich Jünger, den Fragebogen der Alliierten für die so genannte Entnazifizierung auszufüllen, und erhielt daraufhin in der britischen Besatzungszone bis 1949 Publikationsverbot.

    This states that he could not Publish any books during that time.
    It would be too lengthy to translate the German Wiki about Ernst Jűnger into English. Also I realize, and Will Fredricks correctly states:
    You really have to be a good student of their them (German) to really understand their techniques and gifted inspiration well. I would just say as a start, theirs was a relatively advanced and cultivated culture compared with ours, and it was a culture they understand and related to well.

    It is for you like it is for me understanding the american mind-set. I admit I can’t, (worlds apart) or your writing style, when Will Fredrick was so couragous to expound and help Americans understand a German Writer.
    By the way THANK YOU for your insightful explanations.
    We all still have a lot to learn!

  103. February 27, 2012 - 12:54 am | Permalink

    @German Wikipedia presents a more complicated picture. It says that Reichsleiter Philipp Bouler petitioned for the indexing (Indizierung, which I think is a Catholic euphemism for banning) of On the Marble Cliffs, and that Goebbels asked for Juenger to be detained, but that Hitler personally intervened to protect Juenger.

    German Wikipedia does not say that the book was banned, or that Juenger was banned from writing. What it says is that from 1942 (under rationing of paper) no more paper was allocated for this book.

    Some sources say that Juenger was banned from writing from 1938 on but that seems glaringly inconsistent with the fact that Auf den Marmorklippen was able to be published by Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, Hamburg, in two editions, 1939 and 1941. After the war, by contrast, the British did ban him from writing for four years.

  104. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    February 27, 2012 - 12:50 am | Permalink

    more….Liberalism Never had the grip in Germany that it had in the Anglo world. Which is why Germany is not that useful for us to study. This in itself is interesting because nowadays, the Enforced Liberalism of post WW2 might have an even thinner facade on Germans than it does on us. I have spoken to a couple Germans recently (40ish) who had no problem with our scientific racialism.

    Of course, the Globalizing Elites’ initiation rites into the mumbo-jumbo of Free Trade and so on, is solid enough, but Grasshopper Germans are still Germans, and they are demonstrating that right now with regard to the Ants of la dolce vita. Work or Die, seems to about sum it up.

    German LIberalism could flip faster than our Liberalism into its opposite.

  105. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    February 27, 2012 - 12:42 am | Permalink

    “In Search of Human Nature…” is by Carl Degler. 1991. j

  106. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    February 27, 2012 - 12:39 am | Permalink

    This sound like the kind of irrelevance featured in Counter-Currents. Instead we should read and understand our own history, particularly the history of Liberalism, especially Protestant Liberalism (“Liberal Christianity”) which has been operating on our psyches for approximately 150 years. Think Abolitionism, the pietistic Great Awakenings of the 19th C., our Great White Urge to do Right.

    Even the scum of Whites today, believe in racial equality. They may want to lie down with the barnyard animals in sexual filth, but they treat the blacks equally.

    A friend told me that white-black marriage is now 8% of marriages in the US. Another figure I saw in the news was that inter-marriage was now about 15%. And that the most prominent coupling was Asian-White. These numbers are thus incompatible.

    Now….the scientific realities of behavior and intelligence are what they are but it will take a couple of generations for the real mischief to be understood by most folks. Meanwhile we can only study where we went wrong, and it is not just the jews’ assault on us. Joe

    American experience is very different from Europe’s , especially with the absence of a Old Regime and its aristocratic values. We are Whigs and Social Liberals. Absent is even the barest shred of aristocratic values.

    I just dug out of KM’s CofC, on page xviii the book, “In Search of Human Nature. The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought.” We need to understand how Darwinism in social science was expunged from polite discourse by the Jews…Boas, etc.

    Then, by John Murray Cudihy, “No Offence: Civil Religion and Protestant Taste.” page xxi also in CoC.

    This kind of reading is essential to understanding how the grip of Social LIberalism on White psyches has permitted the cultural and national attack on White civilization in the US and Europe.

    Somehow, the Darwinism that even some Christians accepted as feel-good Progress for the Human Race, was subverted by LIberal Christianity.

    The US is the last Christian country. We need to get this, not more wobbly proto-nazi romance. LIberalism is part of the Whtie psyche, per our evolutionary history (again, reread KM’s preface to CoC) and expresses itself in various ways. The egalitarian doctrine with which we are familiar is its political expression. However, “deeper” than that is Religion.

    Take Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden.” There is perhaps irony in that poem , but I think not. Kipling had his romance, partly because of the generally contemporary romance of Europeans for far-away foreign lands attendant to Imperialism. But these ‘romantic’ imperialists did believe they owed the niggers some civilization. That is the White Man’s evolutionary curse…Do-Gooding.

    Albert Schweitzer knew the Africans to be inferior but….he had the Burden.

    This has been with us a long time and we need to study it , for only with a proper diagnosis, is the disease treated. Joe

  107. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    February 27, 2012 - 12:15 am | Permalink

    yeah , but I learned how to make a German character on my keyboard .

    ä

  108. February 26, 2012 - 11:23 pm | Permalink

    especially Jünger, who supported (albeit rather quietly) Niekisch’s National Bolshevik Resistance Movement

    If Juenger supported the National-Bolsheviks then I don’t know why he’s called conservative. That puts him very much to the left of Hitler. If we are talking about conservatives, the DNVP was the main conservative party in the Weimar (not “Wiemar”) period. Hermann Rauschning is supposed to have been a typical “revolutionary conservative” and he just happens to have been a member of the DNVP.

    And talk about replacing the NSDAP with the DNVP is in a post 1918 sense irrelevant

    Of course, as I said, the DNVP could not have won an election! But the idea of replacing the NSDAP with the DNVP has some relevance if you are going to argue that Juenger should have supported the assassination of Adolf Hitler, insofar as the leader of that conspiracy, Goerdeler, was former DNVP. It seems to me that this would have amounted to a DNVP coup, more or less. A lot of the discontents in the Third Reich (e.g. the libeler Hermann Rauschning, the religious fanatic Martin Niemoeller) were former DNVP.

    … I think it is rather specious to try to argue that from the interests of the German people or the western white world as a whole, the events that took the DNVP’s political predecessor, the Second Reich, out of power were inevitable or anything but a calamity for the white world.

    There were a lot of problems with the Second Reich. For one thing, it was a culturally decadent period, called the Gilded Age now. I think much of Nietzsche’s criticism of his fellow Germans is really based on that particular period. The rotten liberalism that Moeller van den Bruck condemns was also characteristic of the Second Reich. “National-Liberalism” it was called.

    OF COURSE what happened in 1918 was a calamity, but very often that’s what it takes to get problems addressed. The Marxists were able to undermine Germany and take over because there was a weakness for them to exploit. Adolf Hitler’s program was largely an extrapolation of pre-existing trends toward consolidating the German nation. Your notion that National-Socialism had no roots in the West is just crazy; that would be like saying that German philosophy is not Western because it is different from Anglo-American philosophy, or that Friedrich List was not Western because he contradicts Adam Smith.

    I however still don’t see how practically you can say there was no difference between the DNVP and NSDAP for Europe’s purposes.

    I didn’t say that. I said that from an American perspective they look more similar than different. The DNVP wanted an autocratic state, they wanted to scrap the Treaty of Versailles, they wanted annexation of Austria.

    Read accounts of Ukrainians in 1918 about how glad they were when the Germans marched in and restored order from the Bolsheviks, or how sorry they were when they left. The Germans in their words then were a civilized people. (In obvious contrast to the Third Reich’s reign over the occupied territories) All the same, in the war propaganda of WWI the “Huns” were ascribed as having all the characteristics the Third Reich in a number of ways came to authentically represent.

    Wow, what a coincidence that the anti-German propaganda of WWII just happens to resemble the propganda of WWI. You don’t think it could be the case that the same old propaganda was recycled, do ya?

    I think it’s wrong to suggest that the Germans under National-Socialism in general were not “civilized,” although I am sure that there were some excesses. I think there is probably a lot that remains to be sorted out in that regard, since there is always exaggeration in war and self-justification by the victors. But assuming that whatever you believe about German occupation in World War II is true, I still think you need to contemplate the Anglo-American firebombing of cities, or the human-wave tactics that were used to gain a foothold at Normandy, (not to mention signing central Europe over to Soviet hegemony) before accusing a nation of not being civilized.

  109. William's Gravatar William
    February 26, 2012 - 8:52 pm | Permalink

    And yet again, an essay opened to a discussion on practical solutions devolves into pointless comments on umlauts and the relative merits of DNVP vs. NSDAP.

    LOL! You can’t make this sh*t up.

  110. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 26, 2012 - 8:47 pm | Permalink

    (Properly formatted)

    @Hadding Scott:

    The main accomplishment of people like Ernst Juenger and the Deutschnationale Volkspartei was really to help pave the way for National-Socialism.

    Well first you’re casting an awfully big net if you put the revolutionary conservatives and DNVP together in it, especially Jünger, who supported (albeit rather quietly) Niekisch’s National Bolshevik Resistance Movement. But to a certain extent you’re right about both, particularly as understand with the revolutionary conservatives . This is true for a number of reasons, but most basically because their rhetoric and actions, while not coordinated with the NSDAP, were strongly negative against the Wiemar republic while not really presenting any strong organized political vehicle of their own.

    That kind of strict conservatism that some commentators today think should have been preferred over National-Socialism was just untenable. The DNVP was never able to get many votes because it was the party of rich people. Although they had plenty of money they couldn’t get many votes. That’s why the conservatives ended up lining up behind Hitler (some of them with much less ambivalence than Juenger). The combination of N-S populism and conservative money won the day.

    “Conservatives” here is a rather broad term. The revolutionary conservatives themselves did not go along with either the DNVP or the NSDAP.
    Von Klemperer notes

    Moeller further focused his definition of conservatism by emphasizing the dichotomy between the “reactionary” and the “conservative” man, which largely through his writings, became part of the generally accepted political vocabulary of the Republic. “The reactionary man is a degenerated species of the conservative man” . While the former is concerned with the past for its own sake, the latter looks to the past for its enduring values. While pre-war conservatism had belonged to a class, post-war conservatism belonged to the whole people. Moeller’s refusal to go along with the German Nationalists, who came closest to his definition of “reactionary” thus set him and his friends off on an independent course toward a new conservatism”

    There’s too much lingering influence of war-propaganda in these topics. The German conservatives shared much of the NSDAP’s agenda, including unification of Germany and Austria, and had the DNVP somehow come to power I think it’s almost certain that they would have been forced into a war too. We should be trying to get past all that demonization propaganda that forces us into such contortions as supposing that replacing the NSDAP with the DNVP would have made a big difference to the enemies of Germany and the White Race.

    First recognizing that with the revolutionary conservatives and the DNVP we are dealing with apples and oranges. And talk about replacing the NSDAP with the DNVP is in a post 1918 sense irrelevant, because it never would have happened. The DNVP was purely the party of heavy industry and landed interests, it had no capability of becoming a dominant and unifying national party.

    But in a broader sense, I think it is rather specious to try to argue that from the interests of the German people or the western white world as a whole, the events that took the DNVP’s political predecessor, the Second Reich, out of power were inevitable or anything but a calamity for the white world. Moeller wrote “a revolution can never be undone”, but that was a little like saying don’t cry over spilled milk. In his position, that’s all he could do, but no one in Germany argues that the situation that forced the Germans to try and come up with a replacement for the Second Reich in some of the worst possible circumstances was anything but terrible, Hitler in Mein Kampf included.

    I will point out that this German conservatism was not the same as what Americans consider conservative. What Americans call conservatism, Moeller van den Bruck condemned as liberalism. Liberalism (our conservatism) destroys nations, he wrote. Otto von Bismarck, the great German conservative, was the inventor of the modern welfare-state. From an American perspective the DNVP and NSDAP look more similar than different: at most, it’s roughly the difference between National-Socialism and Fascism.

    The role of the western powers in refusing to accept the negotiated peace Germany offered in 1917, insisting on fighting the war until the German monarch was destroyed and a liberal republic installed by revolution, was one of the big reasons for the differences with western style democracy Moeller as you note and the other revolutionary conservatives felt. It should be noted however that Moeller did that his “English problem” was more specifically with the English liberal than the English conservatives. Just as he specifically targeted Woodrow Wilson (the fellow who ran on the platform “he kept us out of the war” as he was scheming to get us in it) as epitomizing the worst of liberalism (not that the radical Lloyd George or socialist Clemenceau weren’t also men of the left).

    I however still don’t see how practically you can say there was no difference between the DNVP and NSDAP for Europe’s purposes. Read accounts of Ukrainians in 1918 about how glad they were when the Germans marched in and restored order from the Bolsheviks, or how sorry they were when they left. The Germans in their words then were a civilized people. (In obvious contrast to the Third Reich’s reign over the occupied territories) All the same, in the war propaganda of WWI the “Huns” were ascribed as having all the characteristics the Third Reich in a number of ways came to authentically represent. A certain strain of “you guys will get what you seem to want anyway” fatalism and resentment therefore seems to me to be present in the mentality of the revolutionary conservatives toward the west and in rejection of the Wiemar republic.

  111. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    February 26, 2012 - 8:42 pm | Permalink

    4:16 pm “I am not sure”

  112. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 26, 2012 - 8:35 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:

    The main accomplishment of people like Ernst Juenger and the Deutschnationale Volkspartei was really to help pave the way for National-Socialism.Well first you’re casting an awfully big net if you put the revolutionary conservatives and DNVP together in it, especially Jünger, who supported (albeit rather quietly) Niekisch’s National Bolshevik Resistance Movement. But to a certain extent you’re right about both, particularly as understand with the revolutionary conservatives . This is true for a number of reasons, but most basically because their rhetoric and actions, while not coordinated with the NSDAP, were strongly negative against the Wiemar republic while not really presenting any strong organized political vehicle of their own.

    That kind of strict conservatism that some commentators today think should have been preferred over National-Socialism was just untenable. The DNVP was never able to get many votes because it was the party of rich people. Although they had plenty of money they couldn’t get many votes. That’s why the conservatives ended up lining up behind Hitler (some of them with much less ambivalence than Juenger). The combination of N-S populism and conservative money won the day.

    “Conservatives” here is a rather broad term. The revolutionary conservatives themselves did not go along with either the DNVP or the NSDAP.
    Von Klemperer notes

    Moeller further focused his definition of conservatism by emphasizing the dichotomy between the “reactionary” and the “conservative” man, which largely through his writings, became part of the generally accepted political vocabulary of the Republic. “The reactionary man is a degenerated species of the conservative man” . While the former is concerned with the past for its own sake, the latter looks to the past for its enduring values. While pre-war conservatism had belonged to a class, post-war conservatism belonged to the whole people. Moeller’s refusal to go along with the German Nationalists, who came closest to his definition of “reractionary” thus set him and his friends off on an independent course toward a new conservatism”

    There’s too much lingering influence of war-propaganda in these topics. The German conservatives shared much of the NSDAP’s agenda, including unification of Germany and Austria, and had the DNVP somehow come to power I think it’s almost certain that they would have been forced into a war too. We should be trying to get past all that demonization propaganda that forces us into such contortions as supposing that replacing the NSDAP with the DNVP would have made a big difference to the enemies of Germany and the White Race.

    First recognizing that with the revolutionary conservatives and the DNVP we are dealing with apples and oranges. And talk about replacing the NSDAP with the DNVP is in a post 1918 sense irrelevant, because it never would have happened. The DNVP was purely the party of heavy industry and landed interests, it had no capability of becoming a dominant and unifying national party.

    But in a broader sense, I think it is rather specious to try to argue that from the interests of the German people or the western white world as a whole, the events that took the DNVP’s political predecessor, the Second Reich, out of power were inevitable or anything but a calamity for the white world. Moeller wrote “a revolution can never be undone”, but that was a little like saying don’t cry over spilled milk. In his position, that’s all he could do, but no one in Germany argues that the situation that forced the Germans to try and come up with a replacement for the Second Reich in some of the worst possible circumstances was anything but terrible, Hitler in Mein Kampf included.

    I will point out that this German conservatism was not the same as what Americans consider conservative. What Americans call conservatism, Moeller van den Bruck condemned as liberalism. Liberalism (our conservatism) destroys nations, he wrote. Otto von Bismarck, the great German conservative, was the inventor of the modern welfare-state. From an American perspective the DNVP and NSDAP look more similar than different: at most, it’s roughly the difference between National-Socialism and Fascism.

    The role of the western powers in refusing to accept the negotiated peace Germany offered in 1917, insisting on fighting the war until the German monarch was destroyed and a liberal republic installed by revolution, was one of the big reasons for the differences with western style democracy Moeller as you note and the other revolutionary conservatives felt. It should be noted however that Moeller did that his “English problem” was more specifically with the English liberal than the English conservatives. Just as he specifically targeted Woodrow Wilson (the fellow who ran on the platform “he kept us out of the war” as he was scheming to get us in it) as epitomizing the worst of liberalism (not that the radical Lloyd George or socialist Clemenceau weren’t also men of the left).

    I however still don’t see how practically you can say there was no difference between the DNVP and NSDAP for Europe’s purposes. Read accounts of Ukrainians in 1918 about how glad they were when the Germans marched in and restored order from the Bolsheviks, or how sorry they were when they left. The Germans in their words then were a civilized</b people. (In obvious contrast to the Third Reich's reign over the occupied territories) All the same, in the war propaganda of WWI the "Huns" were ascribed as having all the characteristics the Third Reich in a number of ways came to authentically represent. A certain strain of "you guys will get what you seem to want anyway" fatalism and resentment therefore seems to me to be present in the mentality of the revolutionary conservatives toward the west and in rejection of the Wiemar republic.

  113. fender's Gravatar fender
    February 26, 2012 - 6:35 pm | Permalink

    @http://mg.co.za/article/2012-02-24-the-kommando-camp-that-turns-boys-doubts-to-hate

    Look at all those comments from soulless, self-hating White South Africans. These hopeless cowards deserve their fate at the hands of the savages. I wish the kommandokorps good luck, but their biggest adversaries aren’t going to be the muh-dicking blacks, but the senile White liberals who fight for their enemies.

  114. Farnham O'Reilly's Gravatar Farnham O'Reilly
    February 26, 2012 - 6:05 pm | Permalink

    @Will Fredericks: Both you and Hadding are spot on in regards to the “N” word.

    While “N*zi” is now used maliciously as a slur word, it was indeed George Lincoln Rockwell who brought it to the forefront as being synonymous with WN.

    Perhaps GLR may be forgiven for this; his courage notwithstanding, he was first and foremost a showman, and came by it honestly, his parents being creatures of vaudeville.

    GLR admitted as much in public, saying “I’ve been accused of being a publicity hound; I am, and boy do I ever get it!”

  115. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 26, 2012 - 5:49 pm | Permalink

    @William:

    How, exactly, did thinkers like Jünger, whose stance at least in later years was one of resignation, overcome the barrier between the intellectual and political, and how may we (Traditionalists, WNs, National Conservatives, Paleocons, etc.) do the same?

    You really have to be a good student of their them to really understand their techniques and gifted inspiration well. I would just say as a start theirs was a relatively advanced and cultivated culture compared with ours, and it was a culture they understand and related to well. I think Moeller who helped explain some of their general methodology well. He emphasized and utilized the practices of myth and inspiration well, in a way familiar to his audience. The revulutionary conservative’s myths “The Third Reich”, “Prussianism/ Prussiandom and Socialism” Jünger’s heroic warrior myths, in ways that their German audience was immediately familiar with. These particular myths as Americans we basically have no comprehension of, although we are aware of tons of negative connotations now with these same myths do to their opportunistic appropriation by the Nazi’s. But Americans certainly aren’t immune from the influence of similar writing adapted to our understanding. The success of J.K. Rowling’s books are one example, even though she basically was just trying to make money.

    It’s basically just a matter of good writing, cultural insight, and general cultural communication. How you translate these to practical effect of course I would say is of course the ten dollar question. In Wiemar Germany people read political pamphlets and the more involved joined political clubs. Now we have a different sort of cultural (with strong emphasis on TV and the internet). Still people do read books too. But the politically oriented books right-wing people do read typically either helpful to our cause. I would name Atlas Shrugged, The Turner Diaries, and The Coming Break Up of America as examples of books that were widely read but for different reasons in each case didn’t help people accomplish anything.

    So in thinking about taking action, I’d say always to start with a political version of the start of the Hippocratic Oath, which as I recall it is “First, do no harm”. In other words avoid those approaches which are inherently harmful or just unproductive or irrelevant. Something that I find in practice is a lot less easy and is followed a lot less often than you might think.

  116. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    February 26, 2012 - 5:27 pm | Permalink

    William:

    here tis:

    ‘At 18, Riaan is already a little more self-assured. His lily-white skin is recovering from acne. “I want to learn how to camouflage myself in the veld.” He, too, seems excited to be camping out and playing soldier, as if he’s living an adventure out of a boyhood novel.

    But soon they will realise this survival camp is different to others held in the veld.

    The boys run from the tent to the mess hall. Before them, under the glare of fluorescent lighting, stands 57-year-old Franz Jooste. Old army decorations gleam on his apartheid-era uniform. The uniforms of the boys also come from that era.

    “We’re going to make men of you all,” he tells them in Afrikaans.

    ‘Protecting its own people’
    Jooste is the head of the Kommando-korps, a small, little-known right-wing group bent on breeding hate and banking on some young Afrikaners’ sense of not belonging in the new South Africa to get there. ‘

  117. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 26, 2012 - 5:02 pm | Permalink

    @Thus Spoke Zarathustra

    And here ended the first discourse of Zarathustra, which is also called “The Prologue,” for at this point the shouting and mirth of the multitude interrupted him. “Give us this Last Man, O Zarathustra,” — they called out — “make us into these Last Men! Then will we make you a gift of the Overman!” And all the people exulted and smacked their lips. Zarathustra, however, turned sad, and said to his heart:

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man

  118. Will Fredericks's Gravatar Will Fredericks
    February 26, 2012 - 4:16 pm | Permalink

    @firstworldwar.com.

    Secondly, I really wish that we would do away conclusively with the use of “N-zi” among ourselves, even in the term “N-zi Germany” That word is a slang pejorative (even more now than it used to be) that we’ve been habituated by mass-media into using regularly, and it carries with it an assumption-laden stereotype that poisons our thinking.

    You need to check your movement history. It was a favorite of your own man George Norman Rockwell.

    In Hoc Signo Vinces became a sort of catechism for the early Nazi Party and illustrated Rockwell’s ability to provoke others. The title for his party was itself provocative: it was not a National Socialist party, but a Nazi party

    American Nazism In The Context Of The American Extreme Right: 1960 – 1978

    “I am convinced … that by political assassination little is changed and above all nothing is helped” What did Juenger mean by that? Most likely he meant that the officers who thought that they could negotiate a peace with the Western Allies, if only Hitler were gotten out of the way, were wrong.

    Well you’re speculating now, and putting words in Jünger’s mouth. It is a very fascinating speculation, that though involved might have some merit. The difficulty of a successful coup in negotiating with the Allies as you mention is pretty well agreed upon by historians. My immediate point in citing this quote however was merely in response to Tom Sunic’s question in The Balkanization of the System: Ernst Jünger and the Endtimes, Part 2
    “Or to put it differently; if Jünger had such a fine foreboding of the allegedly tyrannical times why did he not try to kill Hitler himself?” All I can say for sure at this point is that clearly Jünger had thought at length about the subject and had strong negative opinions on the matter. But the paradox of Jünger’s seeming fatalism on the matter, especially in consideration with his both his writings and his extraordinary bravery in WWI does strike me as it does Sunic and others. Von Klemperer sums up the change in Jünger.

    The years after 1933, in contrast to the earlier ones, were Jünger’s “quiet” years: years on contemplation and of observation of his botanical specimens. His joining up with the army in August 1939 was no evidence to the contrary. In Hitler’s Germany, service with the army was for many a refuge from Party interference, even after Hitler had assumed personal control of the army in 1938. But what a transformation in Jünger!. Whereas in 1914 he had volunteered to seek danger, now he sought refuge. He became for most of his army career court philosopher of the Paris Command under the military governor, General Karl Heinrich von Stülpnagel, and Rommel’s chief of staff General Hans Speidel, who were both deeply involved in the military resistance against Hitler. And while Jünger’s superiors prepared for the coup, he who objected to political assassinations, was allowed to devote himself to his esoteric interests and tastes and speculate about the sufferings of mankind.

    In that connection, I will point out again that although it is popular to regard Juenger’s On the Marble Cliffs as a criticism of the Third Reich, it is probably not correct to do so. the book was freely published in 1939 Germany and apparently not perceived as subversive. Juenger himself never said that it was about Hitler (although he certainly would have won approval by saying so in the post-war period) but called it “shoe that fits various feet.” So let’s get off the presumption that On the Marble Cliffs was a barb specifically directed at the Third Reich.

    You constantly dispute “that On the Marble Cliffs was a barb specifically directed at the Third Reich” even though you admit it is popular to do so. I would say from what I have read it is not just popular, it is pretty well generally accepted that at least the main shoe Jünger thought it fitting at the time was the Hitler’s Third Reich, although I do respect Jünger for not wanting to suck up to the de-Nazification commission. It was not “freely published”. It was temporarily suppressed in in the spring of 1940 after 35,000 copies had been printed. A new edition in 1941brought the number of copies printed up to 62,000, many of which were especially distributed by the Paris command. Jünger also was apparently forbidden to write after this. (firstworldwar.com)For instance The Peace was only circulated in typrescript among German troops in the West in 1943 (apparently again under the aegis of the Paris command.)

    I think the any objective analysis of the theme of On the Marble Cliffs is that it is ostentatiously (at least considering it publication in a highly censored and restricted environment) anti-Third Reich. Most consider it in a fact not only thinly veiled anti-National Socialist but thinly veiled autobiography of Ernst Jünger and his brother Friedrich Georg Jünger

    Junger left Berlin in 1933 just as his ideological opponents were forced to flee, and later, from 1938, he was forbidden to write.

    On the Marble Cliffs has been considered the most prophetic book written about Germany during Hitler’s reign. By the spring of 1940, some thirty-five thousand copies were in circulation, but after that the authorities stopped further printings. In the story the narrator and his brother Otto return home from a long war and settle in a hermitage carved into a spur of the marble cliffs. Below is the cultured land of Marina, with its vineyards, libraries, watch towers dating from Roman times, and Merovingian castles. The brothers devote themselves to botany and contemplation. But the idyllic life is threatened by Mauretania, ruled by Head Ranger and his thugs and killers, who think: “It is better to fall with him than live with those who grovel in the dust from fear.” The land of Marina ruined in an apocalyptic battle, reminding the fate of Germany. The brothers escape to the mountain fastness of Alta Plana.

    firstworldwar.com

    “Jünger’s latter day anarchist tendencies” belong to the post-war period when earnest nationalism was no longer allowed. I am not sure why that should be reassuring to anybody, or why we should be happy if it is, since it amounts to resignation.

    I am not sure either why it is, but apparently it is, otherwise why the eulogizing of Jünger by White nationalists and traditionlists Sunic refers to. It seems part of the general tendency among White nationalists and traditionalists to eclectically assert certain libertarian type concepts and support personalities like Ron Paul, not unlike what Jünger himself does.

  119. William's Gravatar William
    February 26, 2012 - 3:45 pm | Permalink

    @European – Thank you for the links and tips. That EJ had a ‘wordly’ side is known to us (though not so much as his detached aspect): his Great War experiences, his entomological and botanical interests, his erotic dalliances with Parisian females during the second war, the drug experiments (LSD, hashish, mescaline), his deep-sea fishing safaris off the coast of East Africa, to name a few.

  120. European's Gravatar European
    February 26, 2012 - 3:00 pm | Permalink

    @simonfriedrich1@gmail.com simonfriedrich
    Mit 1. Feb 2012 11:28

    Dear Henry,

    Always happy for a discussion of deeper interest! Continuing in
    English for the non-German speakers….

    One of EJ’s greatest characteristics is that he was so rich in what
    may seem paradoxes but in reality are complements, in a horizontal and
    vertical sense. Most generally speaking: that he was at once fully
    involved in the affairs of the world and at the same time altogether
    detached from them, above them. Or better put, that he knew how to
    integrate the worldly affairs and involvements into a higher and
    bigger picture, both personally and universally.

    I don’t think many would question the worldly interests in him, in
    fact his intense worldly involvements in the earliest years are still
    of disproportionate interest to intelligensia, media and public –
    world wars, nationalism, political publications, you know….. And
    then of course his naturalistic, scientific, historic interests, and
    his interest in his fellow human beings, in his neighbours, in German
    politics – all things of the world.

    But less known and appreciated are his spiritual and anarchic
    positions, which are really one and the same – and so I like to bring
    this up when possible. Moreover, if there is a hierarchy, then clearly
    this took precedence for EJ over the worldly niveau, especially later
    in his life.

    So when someone talks about EJ stirring in his grave about political
    intrigues, I have to say something. The same goes for regional
    allegiances – although this was obviously tongue-in-cheek.

    Since you enjoy citations, here are a couple from Max Stirner, quoted
    by EJ in Eumeswil:

    “Everything should be my business, but never My business.”

    “Now just what are the cardinal points or the axioms of Stirner’s
    system, if one cares to call it that? There are only two, but they
    suffice for thorough reflection:
    1. That is not My business.
    2. Nothing is more irnportant than I.

    Politics – at all times but today in an even more blatant sense –
    clearly belongs to my business, and not My business.

    I make it my business in the same sense as I watch the weather reports
    so I know how to dress for the day. But I certainly do not stir in My
    grave (or before then, in My bed at night) over either weather or
    politics.


    Simon Friedrich
    http://ernst- juenger.org

    Zum Anfang Antworten an Absender | Antworten an Group | Antworten über die die Website
    Beiträge zu diesem Thema (2)

    HOPE THIS HELPS.

  121. February 26, 2012 - 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Another way, the way that anybody should probably learn that is going to be using these characters frequently, is with alt key codes. You hold down the Alt button down in the lower left of your keyboard while you punch in the numbers in the square number pad at the right end of your desktop computer’s keyboard. (How to do this on a fold-up computer, I don’t know.)

    Alt codes for German characters

    0228 ä
    0246 ö
    0252 ü
    0196 Ä
    0214 Ö
    0220 Ü
    0223 ß

  122. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    February 26, 2012 - 1:37 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:
    The easiest way to do the Umlaut is as follows : make the quotation mark (shift + ” ) – nothing appears – don’t touch the space bar, then type the vowel you need (u,o etc.) you’ll get ü,ö . You can do the same with capital letters : Ü,Ö etc. That is all.

  123. Farnham O'Reilly's Gravatar Farnham O'Reilly
    February 26, 2012 - 1:33 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott: Thanks, brüder. I like #3, #2, and #1 in that order.

  124. February 26, 2012 - 1:10 pm | Permalink

    @Farnham O’Reilly:

    sorry, can’t do the umlaut thing

    There are several ways to do it.
    1. You can go to Start, click Run, and write in CharMap, hit enter, and then find the ü on the Character Map and copy it from there.
    2. You can somebody else’s ü from Internet and paste it where you need it.
    3. If you are in a hurry, you can do what I did, and write Juenger. “Junger” though is not correct.

  125. Farnham O'Reilly's Gravatar Farnham O'Reilly
    February 26, 2012 - 12:56 pm | Permalink

    @William: Good sincere points, although perhaps a wee bit acidic this early on.

    Junger (sorry, can’t do the umlaut thing) does address the ‘freedom’ versus ‘duty’ issue, and from what little we have been able to accomplish in our neck of the woods this issue has been addressed locally.

    First, by bringing to the attention of the best community members that the reason their communities have been run into the ground is because everyone has had the ‘freedom’ to trash as they please.

    We then address ‘duty’ through perhaps a nonprofit vehicle (always nice to work the tax angle) getting these people to financially invest in their communities, who then require in return from those benefiting from their generosity (i.e. – employed) certain standards of conduct, personal hygiene, behaviour, and performance.

    Obviously I’m not going into great detail here, but I will say this is one time I wish I were working with Jews instead of Aryans. Jews are perhaps the most generous of all ethnic groups, whereas Aryans are the most parsimonious. But, once that crack-open-the-dusty-Aryan-checkbook hurdle is overcome, you really see some results.

  126. William's Gravatar William
    February 26, 2012 - 10:34 am | Permalink

    If we don’t find a way to channel ideas into a practical socio-political solution, this (below) may be our future sooner than you think:

    http://mg.co.za/article/2012-02-24-the-kommando-camp-that-turns-boys-doubts-to-hate

  127. William's Gravatar William
    February 26, 2012 - 10:25 am | Permalink

    How, exactly, did thinkers like Jünger, whose stance at least in later years was one of resignation, overcome the barrier between the intellectual and political, and how may we (Traditionalists, WNs, National Conservatives, Paleocons, etc.) do the same?

    How do we translate these ideas into practical politics?

    If not politics, then, cultural organisations and social clubs?

    That’s the rub.

    It’s easy to prance about in the comments sections parading what you think is your knowledge, but the real test is putting these ideas into action IN THE REAL WORLD.

    And if the online ‘personalities’ of many cyber-warriors are anything to go by, this promises to be a difficult challenge.

    Read on.

  128. February 26, 2012 - 5:54 am | Permalink

    In the first place, it’s Der Arbeiter. You wrote “Das Arbeiter” twice. Secondly, I really wish that we would do away conclusively with the use of “N-zi” among ourselves, even in the term “N-zi Germany” That word is a slang pejorative (even more now than it used to be) that we’ve been habituated by mass-media into using regularly, and it carries with it an assumption-laden stereotype that poisons our thinking.

    The main accomplishment of people like Ernst Juenger and the Deutschnationale Volkspartei was really to help pave the way for National-Socialism. That kind of strict conservatism that some commentators today think should have been preferred over National-Socialism was just untenable. The DNVP was never able to get many votes because it was the party of rich people. Although they had plenty of money they couldn’t get many votes. That’s why the conservatives ended up lining up behind Hitler (some of them with much less ambivalence than Juenger). The combination of N-S populism and conservative money won the day.

    I will point out that this German conservatism was not the same as what Americans consider conservative. What Americans call conservatism, Moeller van den Bruck condemned as liberalism. Liberalism (our conservatism) destroys nations, he wrote. Otto von Bismarck, the great German conservative, was the inventor of the modern welfare-state. From an American perspective the DNVP and NSDAP look more similar than different: at most, it’s roughly the difference between National-Socialism and Fascism.

    Did the German conservatives take race seriously? It is hard to say. Alfred Rosenberg pointed out that Spengler seems to be all over the board in that regard. Meanwhile the NSDAP also had its leftist, non-racist faction, the Strasserites. If the German conservatives were not firmly committed to race is that a recommendation for us? I don’t think so. The alternative to the race-based society is statism, which is what Prussianism and Fascism were.

    “I am convinced … that by political assassination little is changed and above all nothing is helped” What did Juenger mean by that? Most likely he meant that the officers who thought that they could negotiate a peace with the Western Allies, if only Hitler were gotten out of the way, were wrong. Juenger was right about that: the agenda was clearly to destroy Germany, and this was pretty widely publicized at the time. Juenger’s refusal to help assassinate Adolf Hitler was not “political pacifism” or cowardice, just realism, and not just in regard to his own safety, but for the likely effect on Germany.

    In that connection, I will point out again that although it is popular to regard Juenger’s On the Marble Cliffs as a criticism of the Third Reich, it is probably not correct to do so. the book was freely published in 1939 Germany and apparently not perceived as subversive. Juenger himself never said that it was about Hitler (although he certainly would have won approval by saying so in the post-war period) but called it “shoe that fits various feet.” So let’s get off the presumption that On the Marble Cliffs was a barb specifically directed at the Third Reich.

    “Jünger’s latter day anarchist tendencies” belong to the post-war period when earnest nationalism was no longer allowed. I am not sure why that should be reassuring to anybody, or why we should be happy if it is, since it amounts to resignation.

    There’s too much lingering influence of war-propaganda in these topics. The German conservatives shared much of the NSDAP’s agenda, including unification of Germany and Austria, and had the DNVP somehow come to power I think it’s almost certain that they would have been forced into a war too. We should be trying to get past all that demonization propaganda that forces us into such contortions as supposing that replacing the NSDAP with the DNVP would have made a big difference to the enemies of Germany and the White Race.

  129. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    February 26, 2012 - 4:51 am | Permalink

    As a correction : Das Arbeiter should be DerArbeiter.

    For those who don’t know German, German belongs to those Indo-European languages that have retained the ancient system of grammatical gender and that shows among other things in the definite article. The singular nominative of the definite article for masculine words is der, for feminine words is die, for neutral words is das. Thus “the worker” is der Arbeiter, “the woman” is die Frau, “the capital” is das Kapital.

    I fail to see what relevance this Jünger has for modern WN, but that would perhaps take a thorough study of his (earlier) works. His later idea of the “Anarch” however seems to be as little relevant to any society as that of the hermit.

  130. blue rose's Gravatar blue rose
    February 26, 2012 - 4:42 am | Permalink

    Oh wow. First in line.

    I had to look up ‘perspicuous’ and a few other words just to get oriented. Obviously the comments will be above my head in regard to this article, so I’ll just read them.

    I liked the idea of Junger’s (though I’ve never heard of him) use of archetypes though – the soldier, the worker, and the woodsman.

    One thing maybe someone might eventually touch on, in the paragraph beginning with

    ‘Among conservative revolutionary writers Ernst Jünger occupies a unique niche, … ‘

    where the author mentions Spengler and Zarathustra:

    thus avoiding the necessity of one last comment on the victory of Spenglerian decadence and the final victory of Zarathustra’s “Last (Wo)Man”.) ‘

    I’m just curious what Zarathustra meant.

Comments are closed.