UK Outraged After British Volunteer Dies In Russian Custody In Ukraine, Summons Ambassador

A British volunteer who had been arrested in April in the Russian-held southern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia has died in captivity. He was being held by pro-Russian forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) for "mercenary" activity.

British media and the UK government have long maintained that the 45-year old Paul Urey was an aid worker and was illegally detained. UK officials are outraged and are pressing the issue with Russian counterparts. "We are urgently raising this with our Ukrainian allies and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs," the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office announced Friday.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/british-volunteer-dies-pro-russian-separatist-custody-ukraine

Response to Joel Davis on Atlanticism

Western friendship depended on America being a just guardian of international law and granting amnesty after WWII. Their exploitation of this unique position has been a catastrophe, not only for the European judicial order, but also against it – Americans have not escaped the consequences of this either. This catastrophe followed the worst injustice in history, which may never be righted. Nevertheless, it is essential to keep the extent of these events in mind, the degree of failure in the face of world power.

One cannot separate society from its mores and culture, they are part of its iconography. Despite the protests of a weak conservative position, and no matter the causes of gender wars, they represent a significant part of what the Western democratic order has become. To deny this is to miss something significant, especially regarding the underlying causes which led to the sexual revolution.
It may be partly a herald of the madness of the West, and also a response to the technical leverage placed on sexual mores. In any case, conservative s themselves are equally to blame and have not been able to create any substantial opposition.

Western unity is a falsehood, as much of the destructive order begins, both through colonialism and anti-colonialism, in and against the West. Germany was occupied and subjected to the worst humiliations, and today the whole of the West faces constant subterfuge and neutralisation by America and underground military agencies. To say that Eurasia could not have a unity in the face of this would be foolish. At the least they are far less divided than the West is now, and decades of pressure has brought them together out of necessity. This is not unlike the explosion of new countries admitted into the UN during the Cold War – enemies may be made into a legitimate union, if only temporarily, through radiating power of the great spaces.

In very broad terms, Western unity was based upon the Age of Discovery, the Peace of Westphalia, and Industrialisation. Each of these has come to an end, so there can be no return to a defeated Western unity. One must first understand the power and spatial shifts. What does this new era ask of us?

Decentralisation and depoliticisation will be absolutely necessary as the order shifts. However, I don't see a return of nation-states without the world dualism being resolved first. Nations and states will only be possible with a total world state or its destruction. Anything in between will only continue the interim, or mixed state, quality which acts against strong states and peoples.

Atlanticism has never been nationalist, its rise accompanies the final defeat of nations. And even if it were possible a new name would be necessary. If people are to rebuild the nations totally than the continental and world order can only undergo an even greater change. We must think in terms of a new millennium, and reconciling with the defeat of our nations. What part of a millennium would such an undertaking demand? This is the test of post-nationalism: building only after overcoming, not living from the defensive any longer. For us, we can only think of inheritance and sacrifice, that which was denied to us.

America did not uphold its duties to the West, and engaged in the worst injustices in history – for that there must be consequences. The possibility of an American uprising seems to have passed, so now it is a matter of divine intervention. Of course, they should not face vengeance or the world trials to which they subjected others, but their place on the world stage will have to be reconstituted; whether through war, civil war, revolution, or all at once. No matter, most people underestimate the changes that will, and must, take place in the coming years.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/joeldavisx/599

When I say that nationalism was defeated I don't mean it in the sense of a fait accompli, only that the great spaces won out. It does not mean that nations can never return, only that the forces underway are far greater than most on the Right seem to think. What we face is a power unlike any other in history, as Tocqueville pointed out long ago even "tyranny" and "despotism" fail to describe this new power. The first nationalists fought against it, but perhaps were incapable of seeing its extent, a destruction that would bring an end not only to states but to mythologies, religions, and value systems. There is a gigantic power that has grown over five hundred years, and the nations have been disposed of as old weapons, then tools.

The first nationalists were fighting from a position of defeat, and in short were attempting to carry on elements of the ancien regime – or arm themselves for the return of a Barbarossa figure. It is no mistake that the great figures of nationalism were Germans, they held a unique position within the European Revolution. One could even say that they were arming themselves for a fight that would inevitably come – their revolution was theological and philosophical. With the defeat of the German Revolution, and the defeat of national liberation struggles in general, there is nothing but the world conflict of spaces. It is hard to imagine a return of nations without confronting this, an order at least as powerful as what confronted the original nationalists. Herder's philosophy of language is an example we cannot repeat, however it suggests the degree to which we will be forced to change.

We might also look to a revolution or reordering of time. "Only in duration does time approach the irrational abyss that brings forth the cosmic event out of itself." Deep down, even the conservatives embrace apocalypse rather than revolution. It is thus hard to see that historical politics can be repeated, that it will solve such grave and non-political problems. That liberals have turned to conservatism has revealed their apocalyptic force, a force beyond the political.

If there is a return of nations they will not form as laws of historical time and order. We are not merely post-national, we are post-historical. We endure the end of an order of time, and not only formally in the sense of the millennium. This is essential to understanding Carl Schmitt's theology, and a nation being driven into the soil like a Cross which the world revolves around. Power is the first question; its form the second.

I do not know that Western governments fear nationalism so much as any opposition whatsoever. This is the essence of the party, parliamentarism, and the perfection of conflict. It is a matter of neutralising forces, if this were not the case there could not be a new social war each decade, and the abandonment of ideologies in the face of each crisis. Of course, the anti-globalisation movements were dealt with severely and totally, so what may seem as exclusive treatment of the right-wing is tied to the defeat of the left-wing. Each side gets a taste of neutralisation.

This is not to say that there is no danger, only that we should not focus on defense and weakness of governments. Democracy has its own formative power, it is not only destruction and negation. Where it is forced into crisis it does so mechanistically, much more coldly than any type of government that came before it. Automatic processes and weakness are often a sign of an absolute conclusion, a definitive end which unites all things. Ideology itself is not a danger, only the type of opposition hidden behind it, which makes one criminal and non-human.

The state of exception is misunderstood, what makes democracy so powerful is that it needs no state of exception – emergency measures and total mobilisation act ahead of it, prefigure its dangers. This speaks to an opposed theological form, and not an atheistic defense.

Nevertheless, I agree in regards to what has been expended in the past decades. There is a level of crisis that governments are increasingly unable to respond to, even to the point of causing more damage. But I think there remains a strong faith in democracy and conservatism – this will only end with a great deal of pain.

The rest is also interesting. With great danger comes great opportunity. A theological and apocalyptic nationalism is the only possibility for us, although I will emphasise the theological rather than national – it is a dynamic which gives the people its form. Post-nationalism in this sense welcomes a complete levelling, a gigantic war which can only form of a total world opposition.

Nations can only form of such mythological destruction. Not through will alone.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/ImperiumPressOfficial/1349

Strange documentary on feminism

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Al9CzVQVhLo

"On the horizon the light glances on the ruins of Puisieux. Looking at the white roofless walls surrounded by the skeletons of trees, one might fancy oneself surprised by the ghostly apparition of a phantom and extinct oasis in the midst of a desert. Not a sign of life as far as the eye can see, and death itself seems to have fallen asleep; for not a shot breaks the midday stillness of the front. No sound and no movement betrays the presence of whole regiments in hiding. There is utter peace, and only nature speaking to itself."
~ Ernst Jünger, Copse 125

"It will be proved to the hilt, if the war goes on, that whether in attack or defence, fighting can only be done in zones. But we must at the same time manage to rid ourselves once and for all of the disastrous idea of the line with which history and the drill-yard have saddled us all through the war. The simile of the steel cord, that I introduced just now, is equally false. The right one is that of a net into which the enemy may certainly penetrate here and there, but where he will at once be overwhelmed from all sides by a web of fire. Like the magician’s apprentice, we have never made ourselves thoroughly masters of the weapons whose power we dispose of. We do not realize that the frontal volley at short range is done with. We fight now with long-range machinery, diminutive centres of energy radiating a deadly effectiveness.

We shall no longer hold our ground shoulder to shoulder, but isolated from one another in small groups and distributed far and wide over the smoking country, conductors of elemental forces. And in the same way we shall attack as an army in echelon composed of venturesome machinery, under cover of rings of fire and armoured aeroplanes, and controlled from a central point by flash-signals. Here we have the picture of the great battle of automata which consists in this—that two strongly organized and yet at all points highly mobile zones of power, whose molten edges flow into one another, attempt to turn each other from an ordered array into a chaos of useless iron and enervated mobs. A test like this, in which a number of entirely unpremeditated battles will necessarily be set in motion at one time, will give the clear and incontestable proof whether a nation deserves to survive, or whether it has played its part and must make way for a stronger and therefore a better one. Its equipment will be put to the proof and weighed up, its achievements, therefore, in science and industry—in short, only the best and most fit will be in the running. Indisputable testimony will be given, in the discipline of large bodies of men and in the capacity of the command for bold organization on a large scale, of a nation’s fitness for empire. And finally, it will be shown whether a civilized nation has so much future left it, and so compelling an appeal to its sons, that it can find hundreds of thousands of young men of high intelligence and iron heart who have still life’s joys before them and yet, in the midst of the frightful loneliness of battle, count the destruction of all they know and are and might be as nothing compared with the greatness of the idea within them. All this will come to the ordeal and much more besides. It is to be hoped that we shall always have a manhood to meet this test with joy and courage; it is equally to be hoped that it may not fall to the lot of every generation.

We shall always be proud nevertheless that it fell to our lot."

~ Ernst Jünger, Copse 125

"You know, I need hardly remind you, it is not numbers or strength that gives victory in war; but, heaven helping them, to one or other of two combatants it is given to dash with stouter hearts to meet the foe, and such onset, in nine cases out of ten, those others refuse to meet. This observation, also, I have laid to heart, that they, who in matters of war seek in all ways to save their lives, are just they who, as a rule, die dishonourably; whereas they who, recognising that death is the common lot and destiny of all men, strive hard to die nobly: these more frequently, as I observe, do after all attain to old age, or, at any rate, while life lasts, they spend their days more happily."
~ Xenophon

The Fight for German unity and socialism!

Interview with the Libyan revolutionary leader Muammar al-Kadhafi, 1983

In mid-April, three WIR SELBST employees were able to interview the Libyan revolutionary leader Muammar al Kadhafi in a Bedouin tent near Benghazi. We do not know of any other statesman in the world who dares to denounce in similarly clear and unequivocal terms the division of Germany that continues to exist in the interests of the imperialist superpowers. But this is not the only reason why we consider the thoughts formulated by Kadhafi to be highly important. It becomes clear that the Arab nationalists' struggle for the unity of the Arab nation is driven by the same forces as in Germany. Social-revolutionary movements find the concrete possibility of realization in the nation; human emancipation does not take place in a vacuum, it is tied to collective identities, to the culture and to the Volk.

WIR SELBST: You say that the Arab countries are one nation. In your political ideas for the future, the desire for their unification often appears. What do you think of the Germans' national question?

Kadhafi: I have participated in various congresses. Even German government officials never talk about it. In fact, they didn't even seem to understand what I was saying when I brought the conversation to their need to reunify the two parts of Germany.
I think that this nation has been torn to pieces by the enemies of the German Volk. I also do not believe in the state independence of West and East Germany. The representatives of the systems in the FRG and the GDR do not speak in the name of Germany and in the name of the German people. I gave a speech in East Berlin. And I also spoke there about the need to reunify the two parts of Germany.


WIR SELBST:The division of Germany has its reason in the Second World War. This war was instigated by fascism. Of course, this still burdens our generation. But we believe that a newly united Germany would be a great chance for the world. We see the national revolution only in connection with the social revolution. Our goal is a socialist, grassroots democratic and patriotic Germany.
In the Green Book you write: The social is the national, and the national is the social. Unfortunately, our people still lack this insight.


Kadhafi: I am firmly convinced that after the Second World War, when Germany was defeated, the Allies deliberately put the Germans through a phase of brainwashing. They tried to take away your history. Of course we are against fascism, of course we are against war. But these were only short periods in your history. But you were also deprived of the positive traditions, the liberty loving and revolutionary traditions, in which German history is so rich. You should always remember that your history was and is written by the victors of the Second World War. Today, all over the world, we hear only what the victors say about this war and about Germany. An objective picture of Germany can, of course, not arise.

"Pacifism will remain an ideal, war a fact." - Oswald Spengler, "Is World Peace Possible?"

War will always be reality. The modern pacifist delusion is not even consistent with modernity's own tendency to inflict the most terrible sort of empty and vain bloodshed. This war is not always a literal violence, although that too is an inescapable contingency. Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword; life truly lived is constant spiritual warfare. The Beast will not be brought down by physical weapons, but by a Solar spirit that must be greater and more virtuous than its decadence is evil.

"Pacifism will rise and fall with the times. A period of weariness or one that lacks great ideas will always give it a clear field. And rightly, for when young men have no great aim before their eyes, why should they sacrifice themselves? When they have, on the other hand, they will of their own accord be carried away by the force that quails at nothing. The proud and indisputable right of the victor to decide the world’s destiny is so intoxicating a prospect to a race that does not doubt its call to greatness, that all else must appear of no account. In face of this, death, suffering, and all the horrors that lie on the surface of things fall away, and it is certain that the greater moral strength resides in such a conception. Every materialistic dissuasion weighs in the opposing scale—to be outweighed by the hero’s ‘So be it’ that encircles him with a supernatural glory. When all is at stake difficulties are nothing.
Once more it is Hölderlin who gives clear expression to all this:
‘I would not choose to die for nothing. But I would choose to fall for my country on a mound of slain.’"
~ Ernst Jünger, Copse 125

"This raises the important question how one is to impress this on the soldier. How is one to proof and temper him for the frightful impressions of modern war when he crosses the frontier in unsuspecting enthusiasm?
Our enemies say we took young recruits into the slaughter-houses to accustom them to the sight of blood. This method would be effective and commendable if the endurance of the horrible were merely a matter of nerve. But, as I have said, brute force plays a smaller part here than one might think. Certainly hardness comes in. A schooling in manly exercise and sport, long marches, endurance of fatigue and privation, and the putting up with vexations of every sort, are all of them important. But they are not the essential. We have often seen weak nervous natures, men of little muscle and refined faces, who were capable of bearing a strain in a way that could not be explained by their bodily strength.
A generation worthy to represent its country in battle is not to be fashioned by any method: it springs from the primitive vigour of the people, and all the educational means by which these young men might seem to be brought up proceed from the same source as the nation has to thank for the possessing of these young men at all. It is easy to demand that historical associations shall be evoked in school and university, but what help are all the great ideas of the past if they do not fall on ears and hearts that feel themselves called to do the like? It is easy to say, too, that art must kindle a national consciousness, but if there is not in any case a depth of conviction, the only result is war memorials of plaster and boring historical pictures. The same is true of the family, of society, of the army, of philosophy, and anything by means of which men may be influenced. None of them can create ideas for which a man will die. They can represent these ideas and enforce them, give them expression, or carry them on further. But where there is not a disposition of the soul ready, they grip on air."
~ Ernst Jünger, Copse 125

Monologue 44 Notes on the Peace by Junger in the modern context

When reading the peace one cannot help but think of three distinct parallels with how history really unfolded.

1. The politics of a post war Europe intended by Junger will lead the reader to feel compelled to compare it to the present day European Union. Whatever one feels about the Union, it is worth asking if Junger's Pan European program would resemble it, and if so, what would he think of this?

2. Throughout the essay, the role of religion is seen as important Junger, especially to provide a spiritual backbone to the war torn continent. Again one cannot help but draw parallels to how Germany did turn out, in which upon returning to the democratic process, it was none other than the Christian Democratic Union, whose leader Konrad Adenauer had campaigned much on a Christian humanism, urging his citizens to use religion to cope with their guilty conscience that arguably is still present in the German conscious today.

3. Western Europe quickly lost its geopolitical power after the war, England and France lost their colonies, and Germany was divided into two puppet states for the next half of the century. It was the Americans and Soviet Union that took the geopolitical throne in a bipolar world. The implications of this regarding the vision outlined in the Peace is surely something interesting to think about.

The Peace is often maligned by national socialists as this turn away from the spirit, towards liberalism and world government. But amnesty is a very old and aristocratic law of war. Carl Schmitt also writes about it, and if anything the necessity of forgetting is even more important once international law introduces the concept of crime into war.

Regarding unification of Europe in the wars, Jünger said that Germany should have taken the early territory it gained in France, then worked towards unification. The war was not Hitler, but a specific type of unification – in any case what was the result? "The world state progressed all the same, for all those national issues were already obsolete." The First World War ended the monarchies, and the Second World War ended the national states.

Later he says that Nuremberg was the end of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, and that Schmitt outlined this new order in The Nomos of the Earth. Jünger was looking forward when he wrote The Peace as with moves in a game of chess, he was speaking as a defendant of Germany, and for a European Amnesty which would save the Jus Publicum Europaeum.