I've no idea what planet Mr Jaworsky read this on. I thought it was a fascinating review, very well written and thought provoking, and I am intrigued by the book. Many thanks. I'm very tempted to find it and add it to my amazon wishlist.
I find the central point of the piece challenging: the final position is somewhat attractive (focus on art, philosophy and theology) but also essentially defeatist. I mean that it might have resolved aspects of the novel's Head Forester situation for more citizens to have committed to this lofty solution early on: but equally might it not have resolved the situation more promptly had not more citizens taken the Prince's path of war?
It seems to me that the same problem facing the latter path (the majority are not virtuous and thus incapable of waging just war) is similarly at the root of the impossibility of the former path of widespread art, philosophy and theology. In both instances an original state of widespread virtue may prohibit or proclude the rise of the Forester, but after the decline of virtue leading to the Forester's rise, what then is the path of art, etc, other than a way to absolve the individual conscience? It may be a way to commit to truth, but then so was the Prince's, in fact he gave his head for it.
Lastly, I am intrigued by the idea of there being 'hope in the North'. I'm not convinced this is an option in our time, as there is no outpost of our civilisation not already under attack and suffering already from the malaise. We can hope for no cavalry charge or crusade to save us, and so perhaps this makes the novel's Northern hope irrelevant to us. But even in the context of WWII, it's worth considering that within the Europe-saving actions of the USA, are the roots of the very same sickness that caused the flames of Europe - or perhaps more accurately, made Europe susceptible to the flames - in the first place. The USA of the 40s may have been a culturally healthier place than it is today, but in many respects it was already in cultural decline and the thin end of the wedge was already in the door and being hammered. US cultural norms of the 40's and 50's led fairly straightforwardly to the revolutions of the 60's (and why start at the 40s?)
Perhaps this is exactly why we need to concentrate now on art, philosophy, theology, but haven't we already been doing this? Hasn't our side been doing this since before the 40s? And we're still losing. The nations of the west are corrupt and declining. The darker powers are rising. They are not incapable of virtue, but they are so out of practise that we can have no serious hope of them either defending us culturally or with physical force. In their castles they are more likely to protect the financial marketplaces than to protect the villagers living in the hovels surrounding them. It has ever been thus.
Greg, thank you for writing such an engaging and thoughtful comment. I would certainly recommend buying and reading the book for yourself, it is excellent.
As for your thoughts on some of Jünger’s stances being a bit defeatist, I think you're right in some respect; ultimately Jünger *did* believe that defeat was coming, and part of his philosophy was figuring out how to act in the face of defeat.
Part of the reason why we see fewer people like the Prince is because, fundamentally, there are always more people willing to either stay quiet or conform than their are people willing to be heroic even to the point of death. What Jünger praised in the Prince is that he overcame his fear and stood up against evil, even though he was doomed to fail—this is heroic and courageous. A lot of what Jünger observes in this book regarding the rise of tyranny is that it comes along when certain circumstances have formed, i.e., when the government becomes too weak and corrupt to deal with enemies and when tradition and morality have degenerated. The usual obstacles to tyranny are thus taken away.
The reason he suggests art, language, theoloy, and philosophy as routes of resistance is because only by understanding those things and bringing them about in reality can we begin to build a basis for resisting the very ideas and metaphysical breakdowns which precede and accompany tyranny. He also believed that it was important for each individual to overcome their fears and to maintain a sense of inner vitality and permanence so that one does not succumb to the forces that usually dominate the more fearful and weak-willed masses.
Finally, one major idea in this book is that barbarism cannot be met with barbarism because this only perpetuates the cycle and gives power to barbaric, anti-human and anti-civilizational forces. That's why he is critical to Braquemart; Braquemart represents the fact that nihilism cannot be used to fight nihilism.
Again, I appreciate your comment very much and I hope you continue to engage with my writing and, more importantly, Jünger's.
"In these circles, it was the fashion to disdain the cultivation of grapes and wheat and to see the herdsmen’s wild lands as the source of authentic ancestral customs." This is like 50% of twitter right-wing ideas, and oddly even diet advice now. I have nothing against ancestralism per se, but this section of your review reminded me how much I've come to dislike the vain of thought summarized by that BAP quote about "putting cities to the sword" versus "tasteful banter at the wine bar." Hating culture and meeting fire exclusively with fire will only serve to make us the same as our enemy. A balance must be struck. Great article, thanks for posting.
Thank you for recommending this book. I bought it and had a blast with it. It encapsulates the conservative revolution era mindset greater than anything else I've read. The beauty of nature and the polis, the encroachment of modernity. It was great.
I've no idea what planet Mr Jaworsky read this on. I thought it was a fascinating review, very well written and thought provoking, and I am intrigued by the book. Many thanks. I'm very tempted to find it and add it to my amazon wishlist.
I find the central point of the piece challenging: the final position is somewhat attractive (focus on art, philosophy and theology) but also essentially defeatist. I mean that it might have resolved aspects of the novel's Head Forester situation for more citizens to have committed to this lofty solution early on: but equally might it not have resolved the situation more promptly had not more citizens taken the Prince's path of war?
It seems to me that the same problem facing the latter path (the majority are not virtuous and thus incapable of waging just war) is similarly at the root of the impossibility of the former path of widespread art, philosophy and theology. In both instances an original state of widespread virtue may prohibit or proclude the rise of the Forester, but after the decline of virtue leading to the Forester's rise, what then is the path of art, etc, other than a way to absolve the individual conscience? It may be a way to commit to truth, but then so was the Prince's, in fact he gave his head for it.
Lastly, I am intrigued by the idea of there being 'hope in the North'. I'm not convinced this is an option in our time, as there is no outpost of our civilisation not already under attack and suffering already from the malaise. We can hope for no cavalry charge or crusade to save us, and so perhaps this makes the novel's Northern hope irrelevant to us. But even in the context of WWII, it's worth considering that within the Europe-saving actions of the USA, are the roots of the very same sickness that caused the flames of Europe - or perhaps more accurately, made Europe susceptible to the flames - in the first place. The USA of the 40s may have been a culturally healthier place than it is today, but in many respects it was already in cultural decline and the thin end of the wedge was already in the door and being hammered. US cultural norms of the 40's and 50's led fairly straightforwardly to the revolutions of the 60's (and why start at the 40s?)
Perhaps this is exactly why we need to concentrate now on art, philosophy, theology, but haven't we already been doing this? Hasn't our side been doing this since before the 40s? And we're still losing. The nations of the west are corrupt and declining. The darker powers are rising. They are not incapable of virtue, but they are so out of practise that we can have no serious hope of them either defending us culturally or with physical force. In their castles they are more likely to protect the financial marketplaces than to protect the villagers living in the hovels surrounding them. It has ever been thus.
Greg, thank you for writing such an engaging and thoughtful comment. I would certainly recommend buying and reading the book for yourself, it is excellent.
As for your thoughts on some of Jünger’s stances being a bit defeatist, I think you're right in some respect; ultimately Jünger *did* believe that defeat was coming, and part of his philosophy was figuring out how to act in the face of defeat.
Part of the reason why we see fewer people like the Prince is because, fundamentally, there are always more people willing to either stay quiet or conform than their are people willing to be heroic even to the point of death. What Jünger praised in the Prince is that he overcame his fear and stood up against evil, even though he was doomed to fail—this is heroic and courageous. A lot of what Jünger observes in this book regarding the rise of tyranny is that it comes along when certain circumstances have formed, i.e., when the government becomes too weak and corrupt to deal with enemies and when tradition and morality have degenerated. The usual obstacles to tyranny are thus taken away.
The reason he suggests art, language, theoloy, and philosophy as routes of resistance is because only by understanding those things and bringing them about in reality can we begin to build a basis for resisting the very ideas and metaphysical breakdowns which precede and accompany tyranny. He also believed that it was important for each individual to overcome their fears and to maintain a sense of inner vitality and permanence so that one does not succumb to the forces that usually dominate the more fearful and weak-willed masses.
Finally, one major idea in this book is that barbarism cannot be met with barbarism because this only perpetuates the cycle and gives power to barbaric, anti-human and anti-civilizational forces. That's why he is critical to Braquemart; Braquemart represents the fact that nihilism cannot be used to fight nihilism.
Again, I appreciate your comment very much and I hope you continue to engage with my writing and, more importantly, Jünger's.
"In these circles, it was the fashion to disdain the cultivation of grapes and wheat and to see the herdsmen’s wild lands as the source of authentic ancestral customs." This is like 50% of twitter right-wing ideas, and oddly even diet advice now. I have nothing against ancestralism per se, but this section of your review reminded me how much I've come to dislike the vain of thought summarized by that BAP quote about "putting cities to the sword" versus "tasteful banter at the wine bar." Hating culture and meeting fire exclusively with fire will only serve to make us the same as our enemy. A balance must be struck. Great article, thanks for posting.
I'm glad you see the critique of BAP imbedded in that quote like I do. Thank you for your comment!
Thank you for recommending this book. I bought it and had a blast with it. It encapsulates the conservative revolution era mindset greater than anything else I've read. The beauty of nature and the polis, the encroachment of modernity. It was great.
This review has succeeded in leading me to do one thing; an absolute refusal to read the novel. The reviewis way too long and Ra
To continue previous post:
The review is way too long and rambles all over the place
You can just say that you're incapable of engaging with long-form content. It's okay, not everyone is.