3 ms·

Especially when you think the Nazis were not radical enough and despise democracy. Then you are surely better of ignoring all politics. “I hate democracy as I

Especially when you think the Nazis were not radical enough and despise democracy. Then you are surely better of ignoring all politics. “I hate democracy as I do the plague" "He disapproved of the Nazis not because they were radical but because they were not radical enough" (Even though that is a debatable conclusion from the article)

DeathArrow 4y ago
I read this in a different key. >Especially when you think the Nazis were not radical enough and despise democracy. More likely he didn't trust democracy and by being radical he thought about taking the power instead of using the democracy and its institutions like elections, like the nazis were doing at that time. He despised the nazis for killing jews and mistreating russian war prisoners. His son was sent in a suicidal mission and died because he said Germany should lose the war. He clearly disliked the bourgeoisie and capital owners and he envisioned a different world, more like in ancient Sparta where avery many should be a hero - like he tried to be in WWI. That's why the article made references to Iliad. He clearly sees more order in the natural world than in the world in which he lived. He wanted to see the same kind of order and reasoning in the world surrounding him, but the world surrounding him was much more absurd. At first he was trying to change the world in a quite donquijotesque manner. Realising he can't change the world and there aren't many people with his vision and wanting to rally in that mission, he stepped out and observed the world from his refuge with the clinical interest of an enthomologist. Later, he derived pleasure from building imaginary worlds.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "More likely he didn't trust democracy" Since there was a direct quote from him, I think it is more acurate to say, he actually despised democracy. Maybe he changed some of his views later. I have only read "In Stahlgewittern" so far. I want to read more at some point, he is definitely an interesting character, but not necessarily a nice one.
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  > more like in ancient Sparta where avery many should be a hero You can't have a Sparta without the helots.
- cheese_van 4y ago
  >More likely he didn't trust democracy Democracy during Junger's time was not a sure thing. For many, compared to what the Soviets were espousing, it seemed ideologically inferior and its flaws, at the time, were painful. Until the flaws in the Soviet model manifested in ugly ways, many countries in Europe were leaning towards their own models based on the Soviets. It was a near thing and had the Soviets not proved to be such dicks, Europe certainly could have gone the other way. "Aftershocks" by Gunitsky has a very nice chapter on this subject.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "Until the flaws in the Soviet model manifested in ugly ways" Hm, I know that for a long time western intellectuals were looking with dreamy eyes towards russia, but for those really looking, the ugly side was showing very quickly. With the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion etc. But I am not aware of any european countries leaning towards the soviet model in any way.
tourgen 4y ago
Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is one of the worst political systems ever conceived of. The men that built the USA knew this and did all they could to protect against it. Unfortunately it did not last and here we are: people with no vested interest in the system making decisions.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  " people with no vested interest in the system making decisions." Opposed to the people with vested interest in the system, like the german emperor and russian tsar. Who made a big war for the benefit of everyone. Kings think in history grandeur, just like ordinary politicians. They just have more unchecked power, you should maybe try out north korea, I think they are the closest to being anti democratic.

DeathArrow 4y ago

I read this in a different key. >Especially when you think the Nazis were not radical enough and despise democracy. More likely he didn't trust democracy and by being radical he thought about taking the power instead of using the democracy and its institutions like elections, like the nazis were doing at that time. He despised the nazis for killing jews and mistreating russian war prisoners. His son was sent in a suicidal mission and died because he said Germany should lose the war. He clearly disliked the bourgeoisie and capital owners and he envisioned a different world, more like in ancient Sparta where avery many should be a hero - like he tried to be in WWI. That's why the article made references to Iliad. He clearly sees more order in the natural world than in the world in which he lived. He wanted to see the same kind of order and reasoning in the world surrounding him, but the world surrounding him was much more absurd. At first he was trying to change the world in a quite donquijotesque manner. Realising he can't change the world and there aren't many people with his vision and wanting to rally in that mission, he stepped out and observed the world from his refuge with the clinical interest of an enthomologist. Later, he derived pleasure from building imaginary worlds.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"More likely he didn't trust democracy" Since there was a direct quote from him, I think it is more acurate to say, he actually despised democracy. Maybe he changed some of his views later. I have only read "In Stahlgewittern" so far. I want to read more at some point, he is definitely an interesting character, but not necessarily a nice one.
bigbillheck 4y ago
> more like in ancient Sparta where avery many should be a hero You can't have a Sparta without the helots.
cheese_van 4y ago
>More likely he didn't trust democracy Democracy during Junger's time was not a sure thing. For many, compared to what the Soviets were espousing, it seemed ideologically inferior and its flaws, at the time, were painful. Until the flaws in the Soviet model manifested in ugly ways, many countries in Europe were leaning towards their own models based on the Soviets. It was a near thing and had the Soviets not proved to be such dicks, Europe certainly could have gone the other way. "Aftershocks" by Gunitsky has a very nice chapter on this subject.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "Until the flaws in the Soviet model manifested in ugly ways" Hm, I know that for a long time western intellectuals were looking with dreamy eyes towards russia, but for those really looking, the ugly side was showing very quickly. With the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion etc. But I am not aware of any european countries leaning towards the soviet model in any way.

tourgen 4y ago

Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is one of the worst political systems ever conceived of. The men that built the USA knew this and did all they could to protect against it. Unfortunately it did not last and here we are: people with no vested interest in the system making decisions.

hutzlibu 4y ago
" people with no vested interest in the system making decisions." Opposed to the people with vested interest in the system, like the german emperor and russian tsar. Who made a big war for the benefit of everyone. Kings think in history grandeur, just like ordinary politicians. They just have more unchecked power, you should maybe try out north korea, I think they are the closest to being anti democratic.