Geopolitisches Schachbrett

Geopolitisches Schachbrett: Teile, erobere und beherrsche den »neuen Nahen und Mittleren Osten«

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

 

Der Ausdruck »Arabischer Frühling« ist ein Schlagwort, das in weit entfernten Büros in Washington, London, Paris und Brüssel von Personen oder Gruppen erfunden wurde, die sehr wenig über die Araber wissen und keinesfalls über irgendwelches Expertenwissen über die Region verfügen. Was sich derzeit in den arabischen Bevölkerungen entwickelt, besitzt keine homogene Struktur, sondern ist von vielfältigen Faktoren bestimmt. Der Wille zum Aufstand gehört ebenso wie Opportunismus dazu. Und jede Revolution ist mit einer Gegenrevolution konfrontiert.

 

Die Aufstände und Proteste in der arabischen Welt stellen auch kein »arabisches Erwachen« dar; ein solcher Begriff setzte voraus, dass die Araber die ganze Zeit geschlafen hätten, während um sie herum Diktatur und Ungerechtigkeit herrschten. Im Gegensatz zu dieser landläufigen Auffassung kam es in der arabischen Welt, die zur umfassenderen turko-arabisch-iranischen Welt gehört, immer wieder zu Aufständen, die von den arabischen Diktatoren dann in Absprache mit und mit Unterstützung von Ländern wie den USA, England und Frankreich niedergeschlagen wurden. Die Einmischung dieser Mächte trat immer als Gegengewicht zur Demokratie auf, und dies wird wohl auch so bleiben.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/mahdi-darius-nazemroaya/das-geopolitische-schachbrett-wird-fuer-den-kampf-der-kulturen-vorbereitet-teile-erobere-und-beh.html

Réflexions sur la "victoire politique" des islamistes marocains

Bernard LUGAN:

Réflexions sur la "victoire politique" des islamistes marocains

Ex: http://fr.novopress.info/

Contrairement à ce qui est affirmé par les médias, c’est une victoire relative que viennent de remporter les islamistes marocains alors même qu’ils menèrent une très forte campagne de mobilisation et annonçaient un raz de marée électoral. Leur victoire apparente n’est due en effet qu’à une nouvelle disposition constitutionnelle faisant obligation au roi de nommer un Premier ministre issu du parti arrivé en tête lors des élections législatives. Sans cela, ils auraient été mathématiquement écartés du pouvoir.

Que l’on en juge :
Le parti islamiste PJD (Parti de la Justice et du développement) qui affirme à la fois sa « modération » et son attachement à la monarchie, a réuni 30 % des votants, soit 15% des inscrits, et obtenu 107 sièges sur 395 dans la nouvelle assemblée. Il est donc clairement minoritaire, à la fois dans l’absolu mais également face aux deux grandes coalitions sortantes. En renversant la perspective nous constatons en effet que 70% des votants ne lui ont pas accordé leurs suffrages et qu’au parlement, 288 députés appartiennent à des formations autres que la sienne.

Le parti arrivé en seconde position est l’Istiqlal, parti nationaliste historique ancré comme le PJD sur le terreau islamique et qui remporte 60 sièges au Parlement. En troisième et quatrième position, nous trouvons deux partis liés au Palais, à savoir le RNI (Rassemblement national des Indépendants) qui obtient 52 sièges et le PAM (Parti Authenticité et Modernité) 42 sièges, soit à eux deux quasiment autant que le PJD. En cinquième place, l’USFP (Union socialiste des Forces Populaires) poursuit son délitement avec 39 sièges, puis, arrivent le MP (Mouvement Populaire), parti berbériste monarchiste avec 32 sièges, l’Union Constitutionnelle avec 23 sièges et le PPS (Parti du progrès et du Socialisme) avec 18 sièges. Dix autres partis totalisent les sièges restants.

Les responsables du PJD ont déclaré qu’ils étaient prêts à former un gouvernement de coalition, ce que, avec sa légèreté coutumière, la presse française a salué comme une preuve de maturité politique. Or, cette « conscience démocratique » doit, elle aussi, être relativisée car le PJD n’a pas d’autre choix que de nouer des alliances. Il est même acculé à trouver des alliés puisqu’il lui manque au moins 90 sièges pour disposer d’une majorité de gouvernement.

Quelques réflexions et questions :
- On ne peut comparer le référendum du 1° juillet 2011 sur la Constitution qui a rassemblé 72% des inscrits et les dernières élections législatives, avec un taux de participation de 45,4%. Le premier fut en réalité un référendum sur la Monarchie au moment où, monté en épingle par la presse internationale, un mouvement révolutionnaire agitait la rue, demandant sa mise sous tutelle ou même sa disparition. Or, 99 % des Marocains, ont voté en faveur d’une monarchie certes modernisée, mais d’abord traditionnelle avec un roi qui continue à régner, même s’il ne dirige plus seul. Si le présent scrutin législatif n’a réuni qu’un peu plus de 45 % des citoyens inscrits sur les listes électorales – pour mémoire celui de 2002 n’en avait attiré que 37 % -, la raison de cette faible participation n’est pas à rechercher dans un désaveu du souverain, mais dans celui de la classe politique et de partis totalement discrédités.
- Le roi Mohammed VI va laisser les partis jouer le jeu constitutionnel après avoir nommé un membre du PJD comme Premier ministre. Puis, deux cas de figure se présenteront :
Une majorité de gouvernement sera constituée avec pour conséquence la dissolution des revendications du PJD qui n’aura pas la force politique lui permettant d’imposer un retour en arrière au sujet des grandes réformes entreprises par le souverain au début de son règne, notamment le code de la famille.
Un blocage du système avec anarchie parlementaire et impossibilité de constituer une véritable et stable majorité de gouvernement, ce qui contraindrait alors le roi à intervenir pour mettre fin à la crise. Ne perdons pas de vue, et le règne d’Hassan II l’a montré, que chaque tentative d’instauration d’une démocratie véritable au Maroc a, par le passé, débouché sur des évènements gravissimes obligeant le souverain à reprendre directement le contrôle des affaires [1].
- Autre question : le PJD a-t-il atteint son étiage ou bien ce scrutin n’est-il qu’une étape dans une lente et inexorable progression ? Ne va-t-il pas profiter du discrédit qui va encore davantage entourer des partis politiques s’entre-déchirant pour le pouvoir et ses avantages ? Ne risque t-il pas au contraire d’être emporté dans le tourbillon des intrigues parlementaires qui s’annoncent et dans ce cas, laisser filer ses électeurs déçus vers ces radicaux extra parlementaires qui contestent à la fois la monarchie et la notion de Commandeur des Croyants ?

[1] Voir à ce sujet les pages 327 à 332 de mon livre intitulé Histoire du Maroc, Ellipses, 2011.

The End of Americanism

Pat Buchanan's Suicide of a Superpower

Alex KURTAGIC

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com

Pat Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower is an apt follow-up to his 2002 volume, The Death of the West. Although the new book focuses on the United States, it restates and updates the narrative of the older book. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the former refers briefly to the latter early on.

Buchanan’s main thesis is this:

When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die. That is the progression. And as the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate. The last decade provided corroborating if not conclusive proof that we are in the Indian summer of our civilization.

Suicide has stirred some controversy in the mainstream media for stating what for many is, or should be, known and obvious, but which for the majority is either not so or taboo: the negative consequences of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism.

Yet, the book has obtained wide coverage and seems widely available—last month, while travelling in the United States, it saw it prominently displayed in the bookshops of major airports. This is a significant achievement that must not pass without notice, for there are others who have been advancing identical theses without the same level of exposure.

Suicide, however, is not without significant limitations, and these merit detailed discussion, for they stem from an outlook that will need to be overcome if we are ever to move forward with an effective solution to the suicide of America and the rest of the West.

The Pluses

With 428 pages of meat in it, Suicide is divided into 11 chapters, each of which is in turn divided into shorter sections with lapidary titles. The chapters are: The Passing of a Superpower, The Death of Christian America, The Crisis of Catholicism, The End of White America, Demographic Winter, Equality or Freedom, The Diversity Cult, The Triumph of Tribalism, The ‘White’ Party, The Long Retreat, and The Last Chance.

In none does Buchanan flinch from presenting the facts as they are. And where there are lacunae, Kevin MacDonald has already filled them with his Culture of Critique. The first chapter is in tone apocalyptic, yet the sheer rapidity of the United State’s decline as a superpower justifies that tone; Rome’s decline in wealth and capability may have taken longer, but America’s is comparable and, as Buchanan presents it, suggests familiar buildings and everyday objects one day becoming ruins and broken artefacts in a continent abandoned to a dark age. Buchanan proposes solutions in the final chapter, but, besides flawed (and I get to that further down), they are conditional, which lends the trajectory of decline traced throughout most of the volume an aura of inevitability. This is not an indulgence on pessimism, because all previous empires eventually collapsed, and all previous great civilisations in history came to an end.

In his detailed discussion of Christianity’s role in the United State, and of the crisis of Catholicism, Buchanan acknowledges the importance of the transcendent. Many of the ills that afflict the West in our age are linked to, if not the result of, a materialist conception of life, and of the consequent subjection to a secular economist criterion of all matters of importance to a nation and a people. The dispossession and loss of moral authority of the White race in their own traditional homelands was to a significant degree achieved through, or caused by, economic arguments. It was not the so-called ‘civil rights’ movement in the United States that turned Detroit into a ruin; what turned it into a ruin was the reliance on economic arguments—so characteristic of the materialist liberal outlook—that enabled the decision to purchase Black slaves in African markets and ship them to North America. Similarly, the loss of moral and spiritual vigour, which has so enfeebled the White race and sapped its will to live, can be traced to the rise of secularism, to the severing of the race’s link to the transcendent. ‘Where are the martyrs for materialism?’ he asks.

To this Buchanan adds a helpful discussion about equality and freedom. He explodes the liberal conception of them as concomitant concepts, and convincingly presents them as polar opposites in a dichotomy: greater equality means less freedom, greater freedom means less equality. Buchanan makes clear that the only possible way to see these two concepts as concomitant is by ignoring human biodiversity, for, where inborn differences in physiology impose upper limits to human plasticity, equality—the elimination disparities in outcome—cannot be achieved without handicapping the cause of those disparities. Thus, the freedom to choose among the best universities is limited for bright White students when entry requirements are relaxed among less able non-White students in the effort to achieve equal outcomes among all racial groups.

The chapters on the diversity cult and tribalism re-state arguments that have for years been advanced by Jared Taylor. Taylor has done it in much greater detail, but Buchanan will reach a much wider audience, so this is a gain. Buchanan also echoes the Sailer Strategy—‘the idea that inreach to its white base, not outreach to minorities, is the key to future GOP success’—in his discussion of his party’s prospects as Whites decline in the United States. And, like Taylor, he ridicules those who see this decline as a cause for celebration.

Also like Taylor, but in the economic area, Buchanan reveals some astonishing facts. Apparently, the United States military relies on equipment that cannot be made without parts manufactured by potential enemies and economic rivals. Did you know that?

Another helpful discussion is introduced in the final fourth of the book, where Buchanan, following Amy Chua, deals with the fatal design flaw that afflicts multiethnic nations that have embraced democracy and capitalism:

Free markets concentrate wealth in the hands of a market-capable ethnic minority. Democracy empowers the ethnic majority. When the latter begin to demand a larger share of the wealth, demagogues arise to meet those demands.

This is a reply to the economic argument for the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism in the West, repeated without proof and refuted by empirical studies everywhere, that supposedly boosts economic growth because diverse immigrants ‘bring in skills’ and foster greater creativity. In fact, said policy leads to Whites becoming dispossessed minorities, as they already did in a number of other former European colonies. Buchanan points out that people like Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, and Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, use ‘principles invented by white men—universal franchise and majority rule—to dispossess white men’. He also quotes 19^th century Rightist Louis Veuillot to describe how democrats are dispossessed by non- (or ‘instrumental’) democrats: ‘When I am the weaker I ask you for my freedom because that is my principle; but when I am the stronger I take away your freedom because that is my principle’. He asks: ‘What does the future hold for the West when people of European descent become a minority in nations they created, and people of color decide to vote themselves proportionate or larger shares of the national wealth?’

In terms of solutions, Buchanan offers common sense advice: the United States should live within its means and actively take steps to cut its deficits. For him this means pruning government and government expenditure, including social security benefits and military bases overseas; and instituting a policy of economic nationalism, levying tariffs on imports and cutting corporation tax to zero, so as to revive manufacturing in the United States, attract overseas investment, and reduce reliance on imports. I do not think even economists will agree on whether this would yield the desired results, but at least Buchanan is making concrete policy proposals that place the interests of his country first, and is willing to accept that ethnonationalism is an inescapable reality of the human condition. 

The Minuses

There are fundamental flaws in Buchanan’s exposition.

Firstly, he equates European civilisation with Christianity. This is surprising, particularly coming from an American writer, advancing an Americanist position, given that some of the basic principles and practices upon which America was founded, such as the constitutional republic, originated or had their roots in Europe well before the dawn of Christianity. What about ancient Greece? What about ancient Rome? Were those not European civilisations? A more accurate statement is that the United States is a Christian country. This is defensible, even if the United States never had an established religion and even if not all Americans were Christian. Perhaps what Buchanan means is that Faustian civilisation—the civilisation of Northern Europe, of which North America is an extension—is a Christian civilisation.

Buchanan is correct to identify the decline of Christianity in America as one of the roots of its decline. In doing so, however, he has Edward Gibbon as his inverse counterpart, for Gibbon identified the rise of Christianity in Rome, that is, the decline of the Roman religion, as one of the causes of Rome’s fall. Gibbon would have sympathised, perhaps, with the statement, ‘When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die.’ Yet, given that the fall of Rome did not mean the end of European man, and that if the rise of Christianity was linked to Rome’s fall, the rise of Christianity was also linked to the rise of Faustian civilisation. All this tells us, therefore, is that we may be witnessing the end of a cycle involving Christianity. However, even if it is Christianity’s fate to pass, as have other religions, or to become a ‘Third World religion’, as Buchanan puts it, European man will still be there, at least for a while, and, provided he survives as a race, he will give rise to a new civilisation, traceable to the Greek, the Roman, and the Faustian, but founded on somewhat different principles. This will bring no comfort to Christians, nevertheless, and Buchanan, as a Christian, is justified in his alarm.

Gibbon would concede that Buchanan makes a powerful argument for Christianity. A monotheistic religion with a personal god can be a potent unifying force, eliciting much stronger commitments from its followers. The Roman pagans were easygoing, and vis-à-vis other religions, the pagan outlook, as expressed by Nehru in a conversation with the former Chilean Ambassador in India, Miguel Serrano, is generally ‘live and let live’. One can easily accept that it is not difficult to decimate a people with that outlook, for, in as much as it resembles the multiculturalists’ easygoing attitude to all religions except Christianity, it is proving daily in our society an agent of dissolution. It may well be that in a world of intense ethnic competition, a high-tension—even totalitarian and intolerant—religion is the more adaptive group evolutionary strategy. Buchanan’s discussion on the growth and endurance of evangelical Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and militant Islam indicates he is of this view, and that is a plus consistent with his recognition of the importance of the transcendent. Yet he inadvertedly exposes a conundrum: if Christianity is a universal faith, accommodating every race and nationality, as he says, and if, as he also says, non-evangelical forms of Christianity have declined because they are accommodating, then, would this not suggest that Christianity will not survive in practice as the White man’s religion unless it becomes a non-accommodating faith?

Secondly, Suicide makes it clear that Buchanan cannot conceive of anything beyond the America of the 1950s. This is the most unfortunate aspect of this book. It is also the reason why Buchanan offers no real solutions, other than turning back the clock. Were his recommendations implemented in the United States, they would only retard the processes that are in place, achieving a temporary reprieve, a momentary stabilisation, before resuming their course, perhaps with renewed vigour and speed.

What Buchanan seems not to recognise is that, while the 1950s may have felt good for many, the conditions for the modern trends that he condemns were already in place then. They were simply masked by the transient prosperity, stability, and romanticism of the era. The 1950s led to the 1960s. And the upheavals of the 1960s had their roots in the academics of the 1930s, who in turn had their roots in Marxism, dating back to the 19^th century, which in turn had its roots in liberalism and the Enlightenment in the 18^th century. And this is not merely a question of there having always been a hostile faction within the American republic, seeking to undermine it with its insidious liberalism; the conservatives who opposed Marxism also had their intellectual roots in 18^th-century liberalism. Buchanan makes it seem as if the United States has been hijacked by liberals, but the fact is that it has always been in the hands of liberals, right from the beginning: the United States was founded and is predicated on the ideas of liberal intellectuals, and its Founding Fathers were liberals. If the United States seems to be spearheading the process of Western decline, bringing everyone down with it, it is because liberalism took stronger root there than anywhere else, due to a lack of opposition to liberal ideas.

From this perspective it can be argued that Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower is not the result of the United States’ being ‘far off the course set by [the] Founding Fathers’, but rather of the United States’ being exactly on that course, even if the Founding Fathers never anticipated that it would lead where it has led.

As a conservative in a republic founded by liberals, Buchanan is by definition a liberal, defending a previous stage in the development of liberalism. Hence his failure to see beyond liberalism’s event horizon.

Liberals have a linear conception of history. Thus Buchanan hopes that by prescribing better liberal policies (what he would call conservative policies), the American republic can be set back on course and resume its trajectory of endless progress and economic growth. Unfortunately, treating the problem as if it were a disease in need of a cure is futile when the problem is a congenital defect. In such cases the best hope is genetic resequencing, a form of death and rebirth. Most likely it will mean certain death and a possible rebirth, elsewhere, as something else, perhaps in North America, but at first, if at all, only in a part of it. Concretely this means the break-up of the union into regions and the emergence among them of a dominant republic among weaker ones, with strength or weakness being a function of the dominant racial group in each case.

Similarly futile is the attempt to revert a civilisation to an earlier stage of development. In the Spenglerian view this would be like trying to turn an old dog back into a puppy, or an old tree back into a bush. Technology may make it possible one day to reverse the physical effects of ageing, but it will not erase the memories and conclusions of a lifetime, and therefore not rejuvenate the spirit. This applies even in the non-organic realm: we may be able to restore an old mechanical typewriter so that it looks and works like new, but it will still be obsolete technology, and its reason for being will shift from usable tool to unusable antique.

Unfortunately for those living today, reality is more in accord with the organic conception of history, whereby things go in cycles and slow build-ups lead to rapid changes in state. Following Spengler, Francis Parker Yockey argued that attempts to cause a reversion into an earlier state of development will at best yield temporary results, introducing distortions that will be magnified as the next stage of development indefectibly follows.

One can sympathise with the argument that it would be worse if the current political leadership in the United States managed to stabilise the economy and perform plastic surgery on the face of America, as this would buy said leadership more time and permit existing trends to remain in place until the possibility of a White rebirth in North America, even without United States, became extinct. A Spencerian collapse sooner may open up avenues that may be closed later.

Buchanan wonders whether the United States will implode by 2025. This was my own scenario in Mister, where the United States disintegrates in a hyperinflationary chaos. But it is difficult to predict with accuracy and I would not want to speculate beyond a possible dismemberment along regional lines sometime this century. When it happens, whenever it may happen, those who remember the America we know today and who did not know better until it was too late will be amazed that people thought the United States would go on forever. They will also be amazed that people ever thought as they do now, despite the final outcome being so blatantly obvious. Buchanan’s diagnosis is mostly accurate, but his treatment, well intentioned as it is, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The Balance

Despite its defects, there is no escaping it: Suicide of a Superpower is a punishing indictment of the United States’ post-war political leadership, authored by a prominent conservative who speaks as part of America’s mainstream establishment. Any White American fed up with the way things have been going in recent decades and looking for new politics beyond Democrat or Republican will find here solid justifications for going beyond convention and eventually adding his muscle to the struggle for fundamental change.

Suicide will not awaken the complacent, induce the fearful to speak up, or cause ideological enemies to change their views. The complacent is comfortable in his ignorance and does not want his world disrupted by inconvenient truths; in most cases he has the means to avoid them by insulating himself economically. The fearful, who knows but remains silent, will not be emboldened by Buchanan’s confirming him in his views; he will wait, as he has always waited, and then side with change once it looks like it is going to win. The ideological enemy is beyond convincing; the only solution is to crush him thoroughly.

Should you buy Suicide of a Superpower? The answer is yes. Not only is it brave, but it contains many helpful insights and bewildering facts to fuel a healthy debate. The fact that the book is everywhere has also infuriated the radical Left, who have renewed their efforts to have Buchanan fired by MSNBC. The radical Left does not want this kind of discussion to take place in a mainstream media forum. In fact, radical Leftists would like Buchanan to be banned from the networks, shunned by his publishers, phlebotomised by the taxman, prosecuted by the ICC, and sent to the gulags, to spend his old age in poverty, obscurity, and hard labour—surrounded, of course, by politically correct diversity. To his credit, Buchanan has not buckled in to criticism. Therefore, every copy that is sold is a kick to the radical Left, and added impetus for the book to reach more persuadables.

With enough manpower and talent it will be possible to survive the cataclysm and make it through to the other side. The other side is something entirely new; traditional, but different—it is not the White America of the 1950s, nor Reagan on steroids, nor is it a linear extrapolation of what is good about the 2010s minus what is bad. For Whites to survive in America, Americanism must end. Those who survive will be the architects of what comes after Americanism; they will not call themselves Americans—the designation may not even make sense for them. Viewed from the other side, with the old certainties gone and new ones in place, it will be impossible to think as we do today, even if future generations carry forward much of our knowledge, traditions, and cultural legacy.

"EL TRABAJADOR" DE ERNST JÜNGER

"EL TRABAJADOR" DE ERNST JÜNGER

Ex: http://sangreyespiritu.blogspot.com/

 

 

Principal ensayo del siempre polémico, incomprendido o mal entendido genio de Heidelberg. Publicado originalmente en 1932 la obra no se ha sustraido a una serie de revisiones por su autor adaptando ciertas reflexiones a secuencias vitales cuya magnitud es imposible de menospreciar. El vigor intelectual, el futurismo de sus planteamientos, así como la altura insospechada de una perspectiva que resulta desconcertadora para aquellos que no están preparados para la visión de horizontes nunca explorados, configuran la actual vigencia de esta obra. Incluso sigue aportando claves para lo que será el desarrollo de la modernidad en el siglo XXI.

 

“El Trabajador” no permite definirse ni encasillarse en ningún espacio predefinido pero podemos aceptar el término utilizado normalmente por la crítica de “metapolítica” dada la amplitud de significación del término. Jünger explora campos que nunca habían sido tocados por el pensamiento al menos en la perspectiva futurista y dentro de la más pura esencia del pensamiento europeo y faustico.

El Trabajador, como figura, no como estamento ni clase social sinó como totalidad destinada a dirigir y conquistar el futuro omnimodamente como función imperial en una nueva perspectiva de la dinámica más alla de toda interpretación científica penetrando en el terreno de la metafísica (en el sentido Tradicional no filosófico). Con la crisis de la individualidad que ya era latente a mediados del siglo pasado y que hoy en día está totalmente consumada emerge la figura esencial del Trabajador, que junto al “Soldado desconocido” y al “Emboscado” forman la trilogía de las grandes figuras esenciales jüngerianas. No sin cierta osadía se puede emparentar el carácter de “figura” con el de “arquetipo” como concepto psicoanalítico expuesto por Jung aunque esta comparación sólo nos sirve para ayudar a vislumbrar su esencia. A diferencia de este el Trabajador tiene como atributo fundamental la totalidad, la “movilización total” concepto importantísimo en el pensamiento de Jünger y que nos sirve para entender acontecimientos que se desarrollaron en la Europa de entreguerras. Nada se sustrae al Trabajador creando y ampliando campos de poder, el mundo de “Trabajo”, más allá de la acción o de la contemplación. Forman parte del mundo de Trabajo tanto la obra industrial como la poética o religiosa siendo propia la nueva jerarquía de valores que permitirá unha nueva relación del Trabajador con la técnica, la ascesis de Trabajo. La irrupción de esta figura causará irremediablemente el fin de la era burguesa porque el lenguaje del Trabajador ya no participa de la truculenta dialéctica burguesa que supo durante siglos absorver y cauterizar todo aquello que significara oposición, inseguridad, incomodidad.

 

Jünger esboza un orden grandioso, épico, emparentado con las grandes epopeyas donde el hombre que renunciando a su individualidad burguesa encarna y transparenta en sí la figura del Trabajador convirtiéndose en “Tipo” de la figura, donde su libertad consiste en su sacrificio voluntario en pos del orden superior, es decir la libertad transfigurada en necesidad, o mejor aun (siendo Jünger legítimo heredero del “viejo cabeza de pólvora”) en “voluntad de poder” donde adquiere singnificado la transfiguración de los valores.

 

Recomendamos como lectura introductoria a la obra de Jünger “Tempestades de Acero” (Tusquets, colección andanzas-53) diarios de la primera guerra mundial. En esta obras se percibe la génesis fundamental del pensamiento de Jünger. Es en la vivencia de la guerra como experiencia interior donde se pueden alcanzar cotas de valor y aperturas a dimensiones nunca vislumbradas a través del puro intelectualismo. “¡Loor a esos caídos que fueron despedazados por la horrenda soledad del amor o del conocimiento, y loor también a esos otros que fueron abatidos por el acero en las incandescentes colinas del combate!” Fragmentos como este podrían estar firmados por aquellos poetas-caballeros del medievo de los cuales fue Wolfran von Eschembach con su “Parzival” uno de los mas conocidos.