"I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take the Cathedral anymore!'

Open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I demand a Chapel right now!'"

How did a movement based on "Protestantism bad, Catholicism good" miss the irony here?

If we are to have great writers again the reader will have to bear part of the responsibility. The first major effort occurs with both author and reader leaving general education behind.

Carl Schmitt wrote one of his prison letters to Tocqueville. In it one finds a dedication to Tocqueville as the first hero of the European civil war, and also Schmitt's own philosophy of history, the existential resolution of victor and vanquished.

For time itself bears the weight of the friend-enemy distinction, and is left with the greater decision of victor and vanquished – each grouping undergoes a metamorphosis. How will they bear this new time? How does time bear its own weight?

A catastrophe of the democratic man is that he cannot bear defeat, even less can he bear the defeated. Here, time becomes an absolute for him, even in victory he is vanquished.

Today, what would seem to be a total history of the defeated is only an incapacity of victor and vanquished to bear the weight of time. No amnesty is granted to time by them, we are left with the unhistorical.

Seven billion crucifixions would not be enough for us. Not even seven billion crawling for an eternity could relieve the slightest pressure.
Fate is behind us.

One of the lessons of the Counter-Enlightenment is that a life can be wasted trying to tear down rational constructions. Today we face a titanic sophistry, what once was psychological doubt has become a spectacle of pop culture references – the old thinkers reframed into pro wrestling and daytime talkshow analogies. Conservative absolution, an eternal rosary lacking all conviction.
If you speak against these nihilists you are obviously mad, "speaking mumbo jumbo...."

Sensible centrism is the clown world of the universe.

One should approach other philosophers as Diomedes approaches Glaucus – a peaceful respite before battle, offer him a great gift; then his wits are stolen, his fate sealed. This is how one leaves philosophy behind, and returns to myth. And this is the only way a philosopher, a man like Nietzsche, could ever be laid to rest. 'Because soon, you too shall rest.'

"Ruhest du auch."

In foreign parts Great Nietzsche died. We return him to Germany.

It is important to admit one's mistakes. In the beginning we should have adopted the position of Eschatological Centrism rather than Theological Centrism. This would have avoided confusion, and silence would have said everything in our place.

Nevertheless, the result has proven good faith, or simply fate. So perhaps we were the true sensible center all along.

"My kingdom for a search engine that would do what google did five years ago. It's insane. You can put in the name of the essay, the website, and you just get back irrelevant nonsense."

FG Jünger's law of technology: its increase frees up work, allows men to move onto greater projects. Even if there is a singularity, AI will be forced to do the work of men, to free up more work.
Search engines are a good example, they served their purpose, and are left behind.

Otherwise, it undergoes a metamorphosis, or becomes subject to formalism, ossification. AI's fate perhaps.
'Thinking machines' aim to perfect reason, but it must be remembered they they exist within a greater order, an elemental order – the atomic age.

There is not only a reign of quantity, an infinite information has its own quality, in this case depletion, radiation, meltdown.

The greatest writings on the French Revolution contradict the high-low vs. middle theory. The history shows it was the lower elements in the First and Second Estate who rose up against the higher, and often the monarchs who gave these groups power, or impelled them.

Is there not an order constituted by revolutions? What follows is a norm of what is achieved by revolution and war, and until there is a true exception events are only digressions, divergences.

—-

The original claim was that without elites no popular conflict is possible, that the popular will does not even have a voice. This is an extreme claim given that we, without a doubt, live in a democracy and that every institution was created to participate in the will to equality

The greatest thinkers of democracy take the exact opposite position of elite theory: we rise from nothing, a non-class, perhaps even non-human. This is significant as it grounds democracy in myth, theology – it is a counter-image to someone like Rawls, total rational ignorance.

"The greatest thinkers of democracy take the exact opposite position of elite theory: we rise from nothing, a non-class, perhaps even non-human."

They are right for exactly the wrong reason. Traditional doctrine sees the modern, democratic man as a lesser state, subject to lower demonic forces which could be "sub-human" insofar as the gods are "super-human." His origin in classlessness is direct opposition to the divine order of hierarchy and the origin of Man as created in the image of God. It is myth, and it is theological, but it is perhaps its last stand.

It appears to be the lingering mid-point between traditional man and fully modern man. The origin "below" is not yet fully materialist in the sense of coming from literal dirt but still "the people," who perhaps at first were elevated by something higher, as in the American revolution, but as the centers and institutions who pointed to anything traditional continued to fall "the people" became little more than a quantity of men bound by the same social contract, heralding the eventual fixation on nationalism and workers' rights.

The Titanic-demonic power of the democratic revolution could not stop its children from turning on itself, only this time we didn't get Olympians.

Nietzsche – a mouse in labour, a ridiculous mountain will be born.

Jünger said that he had an "instinctual aversion" to the eternal return. He quotes Augustine, 'Passing and becoming are not eternal.' Then says, 'Nietzsche wanted to bite the head off of the snake,' which shows an absolute fear of pain.
A naive question, if there is no truth can there be a true Nietzsche? Or does he become for us only a perspective? Jünger, despite being the only true heir to Nietzsche, was cursed with observation, with a search for truth, what is actual – the possible, the will, is something that we must give shape to. There must be a morality of the will. In the end he sided with Nietzsche's greatest opponents, including the Christians.
Nietzsche wanted the possible to be imprinted upon the actual, and to such an extent that there is no actual. This is the source of the will to power, a destructive will which must be made eternal. The eternal return is, rather than a morality of the will, a boundlessness of the will. And it is also an end, the death of the will. This is because there can be no boundlessness without limits, just as there can be no becoming without being. Such contradictions can only build up, like a ridiculous mountain, and what is found is only what was already there in the beginning – nothing.
Nietzsche, in his wandering, became lost in the Greek world, a dead world. This was his hatred for life, experienced as instinct, fate – not as reason and law, which he hated in so many of the Greeks. What he could not see was that reasoning and law were bound together in the Greek world, impossibly like the Titans and Olympians, like a Gordian Knot. The lesson of Alexander: one can unbind the knot as instinct, but it must be bound again as law.

This is one of Hölderlin's ideas, that there is a Gordian Knot between ages, and also within the individual, who is absolute. One cannot cut "the eternal knot, the contradiction between art and genius, between freedom and organic necessity." One must freely choose, in the very phrase we see that the determined is bound to freedom, one cannot escape the eternal law. "Everything depends on the fact that the I does not just remain in a reciprocal relation with its subjective nature, from which it cannot abstract without cancelling itself out."

Nietzsche insists this is possible, that it is imperative to the I. "I am I" and nothing else. The individual cuts the eternal knot and becomes eternal. But this is impossible, because there can be no eternity without limitation, there can be no being without passing. Becoming, as eternity, amounts to imprinting itself upon nothing.
This is perhaps what Jünger sensed in the eternal return, and why he sided with Hölderlin and the Christians.

"Eternal return we signify the cyclic nature of time..
So junger said time is linear, singular progressionm..??
So cyclic time which indeed is true, is false?"

Jünger says there is no eternal return, that there is return of the eternal – it occurs only once, time is captured, hunted down. In his usual style, following Hamann, there is little elaboration.
The eternal return is the greatest weight, the justification of absolute becoming. 'If there is an end state it has already occurred, long ago.' We are the sun and its destruction. We replace Hyperion who will never escape Tartarus. The defeat of the titans is already the Death of God. This is something other than linear or circular time, and perhaps its greatest strength.

For an alternative image, in which Hyperion is still with us, and he must be if there really is titanic power (being is only confirmed by its absolute opposite), I would suggest Goethe's Wanderer's Nightsong II and Primal Words: Orphic. Not only is this absolute peace in the face of the greatest weight, it may be the opposite image of eternal return. Metamorphosis resolves the question of being and becoming even in separate worlds, - does this apply also to the death of the sun?

There is limitless wealth in Goethe. Striving, becoming is not a weight for him, it is a natural result of being. I think Jünger would agree with him, and Orphic may be the source for his thinking on Zeitmauer, the wall of time. The return of the eternal is our being carried over the wall, weightless. Wealth pervades all worlds, all time.

Two other images of Goethe's Return of the Eternal: An Schwager Kronos, and Erlkönig.
One may even call it the Storm of the Eternal.

All of the concepts of Nietzsche can be seen in the father, son, and even the Erlkönig and his daughters:
https://youtu.be/UWNCbpwC-PQ

Only a primordial god may stand against Nietzsche and his titans.