[MrBuddyCasino]

Why go to war when instead, you can go to WINE BAR with "gf" and enjoy tasteful banter?

On a more serious note, this sentiment: "Virtue and sacrifice are anachronisms, wars mere catastrophic conflicts to be prevented by skilful management" seems very relevant to the disconnect between Jünger and a contemporary NY journalist.

I'll copy the eugyppius thread [0] on a text by Rolf Peter Sieferle, it is succinct and beautiful.

From Sieferle, Finis Germania p. 40f.: "Politics belongs to an older stratum of existence, ordered in terms of state & history, crystallised in statesmen, leaders & ideologues. It has programmes, values & goals. It demands virtues & commitment directed to a superordinate whole...

The ultimate purpose of politics is war: the willingness of the individual to sacrifice himself for a higher cause, for his society.

'System' characterises newly emerging orders of higher complexity, which have gradually displaced politics. Systems organize themselves without focus, without values, goals & programmes. Their only maxim is freedom and emancipation for the individuals.

Virtue and sacrifice are anachronisms, wars mere catastrophic conflicts to be prevented by skilful management. 'System' creates order via self-generated constraints of objectivity, but not by normative orientation.

The structures of systems are as inescapable for individuals as a magnetic field is for iron filings. They do not 'know' anything about it, but they align themselves with the preset paths. The most important processes are not controlled and beyond theoretic grasp.

In advanced 'western' countries, it is 'System' that has prevailed. The rest of the world, in contrast, still thinks for the most part in terms of politics, and this appears to Western eyes as anachronistic fundamentalism."

[0] https://twitter.com/eugyppius1/status/1673780970481422336

[vkou]

If politics is all about warfare, and warfare is all about individual willingness to self-sacrifice, why has the history of warfare largely consisted of drafting peasants at sword-and-gunpoint, usually for the benefit of settling a pissing contest one despot has with another?

[namaria]

Were American GI peasants pressed into service? Were SS stormtroopers? Were the 300 of Thermopylae? Were the french cavalry massacred at Anjou or the long-bowmen who dealt them defeat? Were the jihad armies that swept away the oldest empires known to Earth, or the Cossacks, or the Keshik? You seem to be projecting a caricature of history based on some idealized medieval European society over all of History.

[MrBuddyCasino]

I think this is a common delusion of contemporary people. They think that the mass mobilization of the modern nation state that started with Napoleon was how it has always been, ignoring that there used to be a high prestige warrior class which was above the peasant class. They can’t imagine a world where people choose to be warriors.

[namaria]

Average knowledge of History is sadly quite low, as intended by elites keen to keep our imagination very tame in terms of political possibilities. I try to fight it in the home front of my mind and I try to help anyone who seeks to learn more.

[MrBuddyCasino]

Is that your gut feeling about how it was, or is it backed up by historical research? Because I find this scenario not at all likely.

[vkou]

What do you find not at all likely? That conflicts are mostly fought for the benefit of the rulers? That being in the infantry really, really, really sucks, and when we do a show of hands, almost nobody wants to serve in it, and incredibly involved systems of violence and/or coercion/brainwashing/straight up dishonesty are necessary to make muster?

[namaria]

So politics is not about manipulating people into wars to benefit the rulers but it is? You're all over the place.