> In the eighties Ernst Juenger used to compare the actual political situation with the time short before the battle at Actium. > Well, this new "Actium" has been won by the stronger side in 1989. In this respect the analysis of Paul Kennedy is rightfully > to be discussed in this forum. No objections at all from my part. If you go and re-read my posting (to which you're implicitly referring) then you'll see that I didn't took offence with Bertil's original posting which met all the criteria I asked for, i.e. a direct reference to Juenger. It was the reply to Bertil's posting that triggered my little intervention -- it was purely polemical and focused solely on one sentence in Paul Kennedy's analysis that I found had nothing to do with Juenger. Zur Sache selbst: I think we should bear in mind that especially the late Juenger was deliberately vague when he wrote about world politics. You won't find a single passage in his diaries or essays where he ponders the role of the USA after the end of the Cold War. I think that's because for a Neoplatonic like him that was just another historical / geopolitical constellation and therefore not more interesting than the patterns passing clouds make. Juenger's always been more interested in the greater scheme of things and the abstract forces behind individual events and people. Juenger tended to view things very much from a non-anthropocentric perspective. A key term in his late works is "Erdrevolution". In "Prognoses" (1993) he wrote: "Perhaps we are already at the end of - and outside - history. There are many signs that the world revolution is linked to a revolution of the earth, which envelops it and determines its direction. This, too, would be a repetition, but in a longer cycle whose intervals are measured by geological epochs instead of historical periods." Regards, Richard Brem - - - - - - - - - - - This open book Yet to be read This second look This leap ahead New Order "Here To Stay"
Follow Ups to this Message
Replies to this Message
Markup © John King, July 2001.