Sartre on Jünger: "I hate him, not as a German, but as an aristocrat”

>shartre
>aristocrat
lol you wish pseud

I've only read Storm and academic literature about him but the reactionary themes are there. He's part of the Conservative Revolution movement that was against nazis and against regular conservatives, along with his brother.

Sartre wasn't German either you ding dong

It's just empty posturing.

Would fuck for the rest of my life, desu.

>I know we are supposed to delegate Junger to some conservative milieu, but in reading On The Marble Cliffs or The Glass Bees I do not see it at all.

I always hear comments like this on Veeky Forums about every single pre-war right-wing European artist/intellectual (Hamsun, Celine, Junger, Dostoyevsky, etc.). Are you guys all just dumb or Americans? Most of the views of these authors fit neatly in the tradition of the European far-right. I don't know what exactly is throwing you guys off. Maybe Americans, being capitalists first and foremost, are incapable of being truly far-right or far-left, so they don't have an adequate frame of reference on these matters.

Built like a fridge, probably as fertile as one

Jünger had more admiration and respect for the common man that Sarte ever did

maybe your political milieu is so fucked that anything other than full-blown leftist propaganda reads as ultra-conservative

I just realized that Sartre looks like Ryuk from Death Note

Only if you buy into an andequated left/right dichotomy. Jünger certainly didn't

wow, like, just wow, you sound like a nazi, i can;t even

Beauvoir got off on seeing taut young french girls get plowed by le wacky eyed existentialism man.

The trio was for her, not him.

Again, like a typical burger, you only know your own situation and lack all historical and cultural context. Anything that isn't free market/constitution worship isn't right-wing, and anything that isn't woke liberal managerialism isn't left-wing.

junger is a conservative

>Jünger literally lived the existancialist life on the edge

how so

a patrician like him probably couldn't be bothered with the likes of sartre

>being this low test

Nghhh
>you won't ever sniff Simone's butt

*BBBBRRRRRAAAAAAPPPPPPP*

Who is Sartre?

Sartre sounds envious and butthurt

Junger really is his own beast, though, and that's reflected in how his contemporaries treated him. For instance, when he was being harassed by the communists (they might have even been planning an assassination) Bertolt Brecht told them to stand down. "Leave Junger alone." He certainly wasn't a traditionalist--he was too smart for that. Possibly elitist, but based more on personal integrity than 'birth right' or whatever. Very much an existentialist, but unconvinced by either Leftist or Far Right 'correctives' to the 'problem' of modernity.

>posturing
>empty

bumping with quotes from Eumeswil

>“They found no mischief in me. I remained normal, however deeply they probed. And also straight as an arrow. To be sure, normality seldom coincides with straightness. Normalcy is the human constitution; straightness is logical reasoning. With its help, I could answer satisfactorily. In contrast, the human element is at once so general and so intricately encoded that they fail to perceive it, like the air that they breathe. Thus they were unable to penetrate my fundamental structure, which is anarchic.
>That sounds complicated, but it is simple, for everyone is anarchic; this is precisely what is normal about us. Of course, the anarch is hemmed in from the first day by father and mother, by state and society. Those are prunings, tappings of the primordial strength, and nobody escapes them. One has to resign oneself. But the anarchic remains, at the very bottom, as a mystery, usually unknown even to its bearer. It can erupt from him as lava, can destroy him, liberate him. Distinctions must be made here: love is anarchic, marriage is not. The warrior is anarchic, the soldier is not. Manslaughter is anarchic, murder is not. Christ is anarchic, Saint Paul is not. Since, of course, the anarchic is normal, it is also present in Saint Paul, and sometimes it erupts mightily from him. Those are not antitheses but degrees. The history of the world is moved by anarchy. In sum: the free human being is anarchic, the anarchist is not.

>For the anarch, little has changed; flags have meaning for him, but not sense. I have seen them in the air and on the ground like leaves in May and November; and I have done so as a contemporary and not just as a historian. The May Day celebration will survive, but with a different meaning. New portraits will head up the processions. A date devoted to the Great Mother is re-profaned. A pair of lovers in the wood pays more homage to it. I mean the forest as something undivided, where every tree is still a liberty tree.
>For the anarch, little is changed when he strips off a uniform that he wore partly as fool’s motley, partly as camouflage. It covers his spiritual freedom, which he will objectivate during such transitions. This distinguishes him from the anarchist, who, objectively unfree, starts raging until he is thrust into a more rigorous straitjacket.

>The egalitarian mania of demagogues is even more dangerous than the brutality of men in gallooned coats. For the anarch, this remains theoretical, because he avoids both sides. Anyone who has been oppressed can get back on his feet if the oppression has not cost him his life. A man who has been equalised is physically and morally ruined. Anyone who is different is not equal; that is one of the reasons why the Jews are so often targeted.

More importantly, what did he mean by this?

this makes me feel very conflicted

Bbbbbooooriiiiiinnnngggggg

>It is no coincidence that precisely when things started going downhill with the gods, politics gained its bliss-making character. There would be no reason for objecting to this, since the gods, too were not exactly fair. But at least people saw temples instead of termite architecture. Bliss is drawing closer; it is no longer in the afterlife, it will come, though not momentarily, sooner or later in the here and now - in time.
>The anarch thinks more primitively; he refuses to give up any of his happiness. "Make thyself happy" is his basic law. It his response to the "Know thyself" at the temple of Apollo in Delphi. These two maxims complement each other; we must know our happiness and our measure.

>Today only the person who no longer believes in a happy ending, only he who has consciously renounced it, is able to live. A happy century does not exist; but there are moments of happiness, and there is freedom in the moment.

See

...

What does he think of the anarch accruing power from a state for himself?

>I mention my indifference because it illuminates the gap between positions. The anarchist, as the born foe of authority, will be destroyed by it after damaging it more or less. The anarch, on the other hand, has appropriated authority; he is sovereign. He therefore behaves as a neutral power vis-à-vis state and society. He may like, dislike, or be indifferent to whatever occurs in them. That is what determines his conduct; he invests no emotional values.

>It is not that I as an anarch reject authority à tout prix. On the other contrary, I seek it, and that is precisely why I reserve the right to examine it.

>If I were an anarchist and nothing further, they would have easily exposed me. They are particularly geared towards detecting anyone who tries to approach the powerful with mischievous intent, ‘with a dagger in his cloak.’
>The anarch can lead a lonesome existence; the anarchist is sociable and must get together with peers.

>The positive counterpart of the anarchist is the anarch. The latter is not the adversary of the monarch, but his antipode, untouched by him though also dangerous. He is not the opponent of the monarch, but his pendant.
>After all, the monarch wants to rule many, nay, all people; the anarch, only himself. This gives him an attitude both objective and sceptical towards the powers that be; he has their figures go past him – and he is untouched, no doubt, yet inwardly not unmoved, not without historical passion. Every born historian is more or less an anarch; if he has greatness, then on this basis he rises without partisanship to the judge’s bench.
>This concerns my profession, which I take seriously. I am also the night steward at the Casbah; now, I am not saying that I take this job less seriously. Here I am directly involved in the events, I deal with the living. My anarchic principle is not detrimental to my work. Rather it substantiates it as something I have in common with everyone else, except that I am more conscious if this. I serve the Condor, who is a tyrant – that is his function, just as mine is to be his steward; both of us can retreat to substance: to human nature in its nameless condition.