Historical-political analysis and EJ

["Bertil Häggman" <bertil.haggman@helsingborg.se>]

>as I have tried to give a definition of Juenger's poetical relevance and his 
>political irrelevance, I was aiming at the term "weltbuergerkrieg" which 
>you've brought into the game, and, as I understand this term, it is an 
>explicitly political term. Talking in political terms I still can't find any 
>instrument or specific insight in Juenger's works to interpret this century 
>politically or in historical terms. 

KvK,

Would recommend that you restart your search
by reading Hans-Peter Schwarz "Treffer und offene
Fragen- Ernst Juengers Prognosen" in _Magie der
Heiterkeit - Ernst Juenger zum Hundertsten - Herausge-
geben von Guenter Figall and Heimo Schwilk, Stuttgart:
Klett-Cotta 1995. I have a printer's proof, so I cannot 
give you the page numbers.

Schwarz, born 1934, was in 1995 Professor of History
at the University of Bonn. He once wrote (maybe his
dissertation?) _Der konservative Anarchist. Politik und
Zeitkritik Ernst Juengers, Freiburg/Br. 1962. Schwarz
is the main editor of the Records of the Foreign
Ministry of the FRG on behalf of the Ministry. He is one
of the leading historians in Germany and his book on EJ,
in my opinon, is a very important contribution to the
study and research of the politics and historical
analysis of Ernst Juenger.

Would be happy to discuss the prognoses of EJ 
when you have studied Schwarz' works on EJ.

No doubt about the fact that he some kind 
>of eclectically picks up some points of Spengler, some of the early Baeumler, 
>some of Schmitt, some of Driesch, some of the "Gestaltpsychologie", later 
>Bloy, and a lot of his brother's thoughts and so on and so on, but you can 
>find all these eclectic parts with much more stringency in their own works. 


Well, this is your evaluation, on which I do not
agree.

>To go on, the way Juenger combines all that stuff doesn't create a new style 
>of thinking or analyzing at all, as far as I see (maybe it's not far enough, 
>o.k., but I would like to get some beating examples if there are any).


Have not myself claimed that EJ is "creating a new style
of thinking".

>Of course Juenger is a poet,  he is a poet in a very emphatic sense, or what 
>would be your definition of a poet? And as a poet he is to be regarded a very 
>important one of this century, but as philosopher or even political 
>philosopher? I think in debating Juenger's work we should keep away from 
>hagiography. I think Juenger himself was quite modest in these questions, his 
>(literary) position was that of an observer by attitude.


The question of EJ being a poet or not is
rather unimportant, but I agree that a poet
could be either someone who writes poetry 
or a person with great imagination and creativity
(or, of course, both).

You may have your views on how to interpret
EJ. I belong to another school.

With juengerian greetings

Bertil Haggman