We left off in Part I of my review with Jünger’s call for reasonable, impartial, yet thorough justice.
To summarize, according to Jünger up to this point the peace must be global, it must be handled in the spirit of mutual collaboration, and it must aim to deliver a sense of genuine justice that seeks healing rather than revenge.
Jünger continues to describe the peace he envisions, but first presents us with three problems he believes the war was attempting to address and that the peace must give great attention to. They can be summarized as follows:
The question of living space.
Freedom, justice, and human rights.
How modern life ought to look.
Jünger’s brief thoughts on these questions leave much to be considered. For one, he states clearly in response to the second point that “No other peace can last except that made between free peoples.” He explains, “If the claim to participate justly in the territory and produce of the earth is well founded, so is the claim that the rights, liberties and dignity of man must be respected in all countries without exception.” This seems like a surprisingly “liberal” take from Jünger. He appears to be referring to the theory of democratic peace, which holds that free democracies typically get along with one another and do not go to war. He also appears to be endorsing some notion of universal human rights that all governments are obligated to respect. However, as we will see, he is far from advocating liberal humanism.
Jünger then comes to the conclusion that the answer to the three questions of justice, territory, and lifestyle can be found in the “new man, the worker.” Of the Worker, Jünger says:
He alone can already think in terms of continents; his concepts and symbols alone are comprehensible on a planetary scale. Therefore he will also be the ferment of unity.
The peace will have achieved its aims when the forces which are given over to total mobilization are freed for creation. Then the heroic age of the worker will have reached its fulfillment — the age which was also the age of revolutions. The angry torrent has hollowed out the bed in which peaceful waters will run. At the same time the figure of the worker, losing its titanic cast, will reveal new aspects of itself — then it will be seen what relation it bears to tradition, creation, happiness and religion.
I found this last sentence to be rather striking. This short paragraph alone deserves a lengthy meditation, but since we do not have the time to do so here, we must move onwards. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the Worker as an archetype is being suggested as the type capable of bringing about a global peace and using total mobilization in creative ways.
In less esoteric terms, Jünger proceeds to lay out a more concrete solution for Europe: imperium.
The true solution lies in the treaty alone, in the league of peace, in the pooling of territory in accordance with new conceptions. Only this can obviate the cycle of hordes of armaments-workers followed by armies of unemployed, which every regime after the old model threatens to reproduce. The nations will bring whatever territory they possess as dowry. It will become evident that on this basis it is possible to live better, more richly, and — above all — more safely than before.
…As the nations were born out of the dynasties and fragments of old empires, so today they in turn must coalesce to form an imperium."
How should this imperium be constituted? Jünger gives us two principles: unity and diversity. “The new dominion must be a union of all its members, but must respect their individuality.” He calls for “uniformity of organization in whatever concerns technical matters, industry, commerce, communications, trades, weights and measurements, and defense.” However, “the European constitution must skillfully distinguish the cultural plane from that of material civilization, forming them into picture and frame so as to unite their benefits for the human race. It must create territorial and political unity while preserving historical diversity.” He imagines that “in the new home it will be possible to be Breton, Wend, Basque, Cretan, or Sicilian — and that with greater freedom than before.”
This is a fascinating and compelling vision of Europe that ultimately was not realized in the European Union. While the EU does promote some level of unity in organization it still operates alongside the nation-state model. Furthermore, it is not as unified as Jünger imagines, nor does it allow for the cultural diversity and localism that he hopes for. Yes, Jünger wanted a united Europe, but what he imagined was imperium, not just a union of federation of nation states.
This is maybe his most controversial suggestion thus far. Today there is a large debate surrounding the practicality and usefulness of a unified Europe, populism, nationalist movements, and the like. Jünger’s suggestion that all of Europe move towards a more imperial model may be received more positively by those who think the EU is a step in the right direction and that a fragmented Europe is a weak Europe. We can certainly debate the merits of his proposal, but we ought to keep in mind that what he imagined was far more radical than what has been realized today.
Up to this point Jünger’s vision for post-war Europe is, admittedly, a bit unimpressive. That is not to say it is bad, but wanting a unified Europe and a global peace that seeks reconciliation and healing rather than revenge and punishment is not all that unique. Yes, his hope for imperium is not typical, nor is his concept of the worker and its place in all this a theory shared by others, but overall, it seems rather basic.
All this changes in section XIII. Beginning here, Jünger reveals the true nature of his vision and expounds upon the “Christian” part of the imperium.
Though he praised reason and dispassionate justice earlier, he states first and foremost that, “The peace must not be founded solely on human reason. It cannot endure if limited in its nature to a legal pact formed between men, if it does not also exist as a holy covenant.”
Now this is quite a shift. Jünger had briefly mentioned theology and salvation in the first part, but up to now he has kept rather quiet on the role he sees theology playing in the peace. As we will see, he has saved the best for last, and theology turns out to be the lynchpin of his entire plan.
Jünger first identifies that the deepest source of evil today is that of nihilism. If nihilism is not addressed, everything else will be in vain: the unification of Europe, the metering out of justice, and the total mobilization of the world will all fall flat if nihilistic and technocratic tendencies remain unquestioned. There must be a deeper basis for the peace, one that challenges nihilism and gives real meaning to the suffering that the world experienced.
Thus in spite of all tribunals and treaties we will plunge deeper into destruction if the transformation remains purely humanitarian and is not accompanied by a theological one.
He goes on in section XIV:
If the struggle against nihilism is to succeed, it must be fought out in the heart of each one of us. Everyone shared in the guilt, and there is no one who did not stand in need of the healing powers which are to be found in the realms of suffering. To this end, it is necessary that in the life of the individual as in the constitution, technical knowledge should be kept in its place. The modes and methods of technical thinking must not encroach where human happiness, love and well-being should flourish. The intellectual, the titanic powers must be separated from the human and the divine and subordinated to them.
That is possible only if men strengthen themselves metaphysically in proportion to the growth of technical science. And here begin the wide, virgin fields of the new theology; it is the first among the sciences, for it is knowledge of the deepest causes and of the highest law which shaped the world.
First of all, we need to pay attention to Jünger’s call for individual action. Nihilism is not a malady that just affects states and churches and philosophers—it affects all of us. We the people were responsible for what happened in the 20th century. We enabled and even carried out the slaughter. It is therefore on each and every one of us to face the nihilism within. Later, he would lay out the process for doing so in The Forest Passage (1951).
With that in mind, we must consider the bolded sentences, which are some of the most important of the whole essay. Jünger’s assertion flies in the face of modern society, both then and now. Ultimately, he is pointing out that if we wish to achieve human happiness, love, and well-being, then we must be solidly grounded in a theological outlook. We must have a guiding metaphysics. I am reminded of what Julius Evola said in the beginning of Ride the Tiger1:
A civilization or a society is “traditional” when it is ruled by principles that transcend what is merely human and individual, and when all its sectors are formed and ordered from above, and directed to what is above.
Jünger is clear: the technical cannot dominate us. We must subordinate the technical to the theological. He continues:
We have reached the point where, if not belief, at least piety, an effort to live justly in the highest sense of the word, can be demanded of mankind. Tolerance must have limits to this extent, that the leadership of men cannot be granted to the nihilists, to the pure technicians or to those who despise all moral obligations. Whoever places his trust in man and human wisdom alone cannot speak as judge, nor can he expound as teacher, heal as doctor or serve the state as official. These are modes of life that end with hangmen in the seats of the mighty.
World War II is a perfect example of what happens when nihilists, technicians, and those who reject morality take power. Jünger is strongly rebuking the idea that secular men with no clear set of morals and justice can hold power, though unfortunately this is exactly what would end up happening even after the war.
Nevertheless,
The state therefore acts in its own interests if it not only advances the great doctrines of salvation, but places its trust in those of its citizens who confess to belief in an intelligence transcending man’s. To the extent that this comes about we will see nihilism decline…
The state must ever look to faith if it is not quickly to fall in ruin or be destroyed by fire.
These are strong words and spell out exactly how he sought to oppose nihilism: a return to faith. In the last few pages of the essay, he goes into greater detail and with greater intensity calls for an embrace of Christianity:
The true conquest of nihilism and the attainment of peace will be possible only with the help of the churches. Just as the trustworthiness of a man in the new state will depend not on his internationality, but on his nationality, so his education must aim at adherence to a faith and not at indifference. He must know his native land on earth and in the infinite, in time and in eternity. This education for a full life must have its roots in loftier certainties than the state can establish with its schools and universities.
In addition the churches, too, stand in need of a revival, in the sense that implies return to fundamentals; for true recovery, new life must go back to the sources.
The comment about a man’s trustworthiness being built on his nationality is curious considering Jünger’s comments on the global character of the world, but this is actually an indication that despite his acceptance of movements towards globalism, he still believed one’s ties to a local culture and a nation were the real mark of one’s character. Man cannot be indifferent to faith, nor can be indifferent to his people and his nation. He must know both his “native land on earth and in the infinite.” This is highly relevant to Christians today because many of us are told that because we are citizens of the eternal kingdom, we need not concern ourselves with our nations, our folk, and our earthly cultures. What does it matter if our people die out or our country is brought to ruin, we should be indifferent to that as Christians, right? Wrong, says Jünger, and rightly so. When the world is global and spheres of influence are much wider, it is actually more important than ever that we maintain strong ties to our nation, our culture, our language, and our faith.
There is one last longer passage I wish to share, because it is probably my favorite of the whole essay:
Mankind had to learn that in the midst of the catastrophe none of the subtle systems and none of his teachings and writings could give him counsel — or at least only for ill. They all lead to murder and the cult of power. On the other hand in the whirlwinds of destruction, the truth of the great images of Holy Scripture became ever clearer — of its commandments, promises and revelations. In the symbols of the divine origin of the world, of the creation, of mans fall, in the images of Cain and Abel, of the flood, of Sodom and Gomorrah and of the tower of Babel, in the psalms and in the prophets, and in the truth of the New Testament which transcends the base laws of the realm of terror — in all these is manifested to us the eternal framework which is the foundation of human history and human geography…
…The people must be brought back to Christian morals, without which they are rendered as defenseless prey to destruction. There lies mankind’s path — imitation of man’s great prototype'; but the path will be useless unless a way is found to the divine image. That is a path which only the elite may tread.
If there was ever any question what Jünger really thought about Christianity, we can find the answer right here. I have heard it said online that Jünger only converted to Catholicism later in life out of senility and weakness (a baseless accusation). Here we see such theories completely refuted. Jünger speaks only positively about Christianity in The Peace and goes so far that he views a return to Christianity as the answer to the crisis of nihilism, and the only way that any real and lasting peace can be achieved.
Jünger also imagines that the battle against nihilism will include direct State involvement. Unlike some Christians today who only call for individual transformation or “changing the culture,” Jünger calls on the State to take action. He says that the State ought to place in positions of power only those who confess to a higher intelligence, i.e., a God. Even our doctors and teachers must recognize some transcendent order. If they do not, then there is really no limit to what they can do. We can see the consequences of a secularized healthcare industry and education system today: it slaughters the unborn and euthanizes the elderly and it teaches children the most morally reprehensible ideas about their bodies and sexuality. To combat this, the State must advance theology as the highest science. Without theology to guide the other sciences, they will go the route of nihilism and destruction: “theology must no longer be a second class subject in the curriculum.” Beyond just a vague endorsement of Christian morality, he calls on the State to advance doctrines of salvation. For the project of combatting nihilism, it will not do to just vaguely enforce basic morality in society; rather, mankind needs a thoroughly Christian understanding of existence itself. This is why Scripture is so important: it provides an entire worldview, a means by which we can interpret all of history and the events of our own day.
Instead, we have unsuccessfully attempted to discard the Scriptural narrative of history with manmade systems (like Marx’s view of history or the Whig understanding of history) and have tried to supplant Christian morality with an “Enlightened” morality. The Second World War blew up any idea that our modern, liberal, secular, so-called humanist ideologies were actually going to bring about an enlightened and rational world. Obviously, then, we cannot just return to that after the war and Jünger explicitly says as much:
The view is still widely held that to reestablish order it would suffice to return to the liberal state. But that would merely mean returning to our point of departure. In the polemics which the old Liberals sustain against the nihilists, they behave like fathers bewailing their misguided children without seeing that the real fault lies in inadequate education.
Doing liberalism again but harder this time is not the way forward if the world has any chance of improving its situation after the war.
Finally, I wish to touch on Jünger’s comments about the necessity for reform in the churches. He makes sure to qualify that statement by saying that by reform he does not mean modernizing but actually returning to the fundamentals and going back to the sources. It would be ridiculous to attempt to resist nihilism or secular liberalism with an “updated” Christianity that forgets its roots. The Christian revival that he calls for, then, is a far cry from what we actually got in the 1960s and 1970s. That is not to say that he would endorse the “Traditionalist” movements of today, since many of those can only trace their roots to the 18th and 19th century. No, I believe that Jünger’s idea of returning to the sources is a call to go back and study the Christianity of a much earlier age.
At this point we have to address the elephant in the room: absolutely nothing that Jünger envisioned came true. We did, in fact, just try to do secular liberalism harder. We did not pursue a peace built from collaboration and good will. We did not get a European Imperium—we got a liberal centralized bureaucracy. We did not see a revival of the churches—we saw a decline. We did not see a return to Christian morals but a rejection or aping of them. We did not see theology elevated to the highest science—instead we saw it reduced to one of the most insignificant fields, even within so-called Catholic institutions. We placed our trust in technicians and fully allowed technology to take hold of us while totally neglecting our metaphysics. We tried to do the League of Nations again, which has turned out to be more or less a disaster depending on your point of view. In sum: we did everything Jünger warned against, and nothing he advocated for.
Is it any surprise, then, that the post-war order is the way it is? We are even more lost than we were before, and frankly the suffering of tens of millions has yielded almost no good fruit. Sure, the openly totalitarian Fascist and Communist regimes have fallen, but a more subtle and more effective totalitarianism has taken its place.
Reading Jünger’s The Peace is a wonderful glimpse into his political and theological thought, but it left me very disappointed. He knew the best course of action and we completely ignored him and all those like him. We have received our reward.
Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul published by Inner traditions.
I read The Peace and I liked it and reading this to help explain it was very interesting. It's a shame we completely ignored Junger, Tolkien, and other men who tried to warn us. God Bless.
If I remember correctly, René Guénon suggested something similar in his book "The Crisis of the Modern World", a return to Catholicism. As you already stated, the trend is still going in the other direction with our nihilistic worship of ourselves. Maybe we would be at another place, if we followed Jünger´s advice.
As Jünger´s view were refined (or changing) during his life, constantly updating his work, how did his views regarding this topic evolve in the later part of his life? Are there any pieces of work that hint at similar topics? I haven´t read anything by him released after 1951.
PS: The German WW2 uniforms look awesome.