A bit about the author; Ernst Jünger (1895-1998)
was a fascinating German writer of the Twentieth century. He served in the trenches in France during
World War I and during the Weimar period in Germany, he devoted himself as one
of the foremost thinkers of what was later referred to as Conservative
Revolution which attempted to add another position beyond the Left and the
Right wings. He was never a member of the
National Socialist movement; however, he was hailed by them as a
forerunner. He refused invitation to the
Nazi Party and to head the German Academy of Literature. He was then later ostracized by them when he
wrote about his negative perceptions and against situations of Hitler’s
regime. He served in the Wehrmacht
during World War II in occupied France assigned in an administrative position. He continued to write after the war, and as
an enthusiast, he experimented with cocaine, hashish as well as LSD along with
its inventor friend Dr. Albert Hofmann. It
can be said that he is one of the most astonishing German writers to have lived
through the historical periods in German history including Wilhelmine or
pre-Weimar Republic, Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, the divided Germany and
then the reunification of Germany. I chose the following passage in which Jünger
explains pain playing significant role in discipline.
“Here, too, pain plays a significant, but no doubt
opposite, role. This is because life
strives incessantly to stay in contact with pain. Indeed, discipline means nothing other than
this, whether it is of the priestly-ascetic kind directed toward abnegation or
of the warlike-heroic kind directed towards hardening oneself like steel. In both cases, it is a matter of maintaining
complete control over life, so that at any hour of the day it can serve a
higher calling. The central question
concerning the rank of present values can be answered by determining to what
extent the body can be treated as an object.” (On Pain, p.16)
It reminded me of the
story of Spartacus the gladiator slave who opposed the Roman Empire and attempted
to liberate the slaves.Then Roman
Empire wherein some people had no choice but to have gladiator slave-like
mentality, with decrepit caste system without hope other than daily struggle
with pain, treating one’s body, disciplining one’s body to pain, and to measure
or negate pain in a “priestly-ascetic kind” or directing it towards anger and therefore
the behavior of the “warlike-heroic kind hardening oneself like steel.”(On Pain, p.16)It also briefly reminded me of Descartes
dualism wherein he argues the mind and body function separately.“. . .determining to what extent the body can
be treated as an object”, again in my opinion reproaches disciplining oneself;
mind over matter, as in this case, mind over body.
However, that was just but one type of pain explained among many that Jünger references
and relates. Which in my opinion overall
led to an interesting reference and perspective on pain on a spiritual adaptation
as one’s interpretation and acceptance of pain as well as one’s tolerance of
pain, wherein he describes even “Boredom is nothing other than the dissolution of
pain in time.” (On Pain. p.13). I say subjective
paradox with nihilistic approach on life and peace especially with the inevitable
industrial supremacy.
I began watching the
movie “Triumph of the Will” and contemplated how propaganda reaches people and
turn people into giving up their freedom – at this point, Germans didn’t have a
choice; they sought Hitler to power who suspended all liberties. I understand there were other factors
attributed to what occurred in Germany but it brings me to think about our
freedom and the importance of the US First Amendment.
There have been times, especially during times of
war or turmoil, nations and countries like the US which preach and practice freedom
and the First Amendment, have taken away individual rights even press rights,
opinions, expressions, and freedom proclaiming Acts as laws to abide by – umm this
sounds familiar; sounds a lot like Article 48 of Weimar constitution, isn’t this
the way Hitler turned Germany into dictatorship? The US Sedition Acts as well as Amendments to
the Espionage Acts gave permission to the government to suspend the First
Amendment – it prohibited negative language against the US government,
disloyalty to the US government, its flag, its armed forces or that causes
others to see the US government in any negative light. However, it was written that this only
applies in times when the US is in war. Don’t
get me wrong, however other people have interpreted this, it was written in
order to suppress mob mentality and vigilantism within the public so that they don’t
take matters into their own hands. But
this first Sedition Act of 1798 pertained originally to US in war in US
soil. How about US involved in war
outside of US? How come US press is
denied information about war that is happening elsewhere in the world by US
troops? Different circumstances, different
country, different topic – just gone off tangent trying to point out
governments do at times conduct actions negatively of course in the name of “national
security”, or hide and omit things from the public which breaches our freedom.
During and after watching the movie, Triumph of the
Will (1935), I’ve found myself saying “WOW!” a dozen times both in complete
shock and at more times in complete positive awe. Of course that’s what they propagandized and
consciously showed the rest of the world the good image and the notion of “will
to power” as Nietzschians proclaim – it worked!
At least on me it did – it’s not just the way Hitler was portrayed in
the movie/documentary alone; I felt as though he really had a grand agenda for
Germany in a progressive direction.
Perhaps he had, at least in the beginning of his rise to leadership and
power, or perhaps the targeting and annihilation of Jews among others was his
prime agenda from the get-go, and his show of leadership, charisma along with
all the “romantic” things Weber mentions (traditional, bureaucratic and
charismatic) in identifying the forms of authority was simply an act by Hitler. Because Hitler portrayed all that and more in
my opinion in this no limit budget propaganda film – of course that’s what he
was supposed to portray?
Again I have a dilemma of picking and choosing just
a scene or series of scenes to portray – the movie, though-out, is such
propaganda that it pulls you to listen, to see further what he has to say. Look at the scenes in the beginning of the
movie – with pomp and circumstance, all those vast number of people, chanting,
raising their arms in salute and respect – people loved him! He was wooed, he was loved and Hitler knew
it! You can see it in his face – he loved
it. And to my surprise, he seemed to appear
sincere which showed as he was in power – look at how the economy
improved. It was nationalism – will to
power, make Germany great, strengthen, build and become a nation of power! But then what happened? The army of young men he amasses soon looked
to me as though Hitler was grooming them to be his elite SS and more. All the while, every speech he makes, the
force of his emotions in his speech, like a mock-trial contender doubling his
charisma with passionate conviction, he praises with optimism and persuades, you
see the captivating faces of the masses in agreement and admiration, although I
have to admit, at some points, the younger kids look brain-washed. And I suppose it was brain-washing; day in
and day out you hear the propaganda, you see posters and signs written stating
the same and you’re with bunch of others conforming – and I bet, you had better
conformed.
He wanted to lead
Germany his way, but in the beginning, with the mix of the Communists and the Socialists
I assume, he had to correct situations so that his Nazi party did not look to
be swaying too Socialistic. So he did
away with the Communists and then the Socialists and banned any other party
altogether. Was Kristallnacht along with
other countless tragedies as well as the Holocaust part of his will to power and
making Germany a great nation state? I
begin to wonder, did it start out this way? Did Hitler’s regime begin with this notion to eradicate?
When was the Aryan mentality incorporated? Or was it his followers like Hermann Goring and
propaganda supporters’ like Goebbels insistence? Was he eventually coerced indirectly by his subordinates’
actions and let continue the massacre in his name? Or was he just a sadistic lunatic who turned
into a mind twisted and warped sicko once in power who saw and plotted the whole
thing? History tells a story; or stories. Is that the full story or are there other stories?
However much esteemed and highly regarded as a
classic work of political science, Max Weber’s Politics as a Vocation, was interesting
in its own intensity and at times a slow read in terms of trying to comprehend and
or imagine the context of his lecture/writing in the given time period. The following passages caught my attention in
terms of Weber’s interpretations of how the journalist and or even the press
media are “the most important representatives of the” demagogues. (Weber,
p.11). Politics and Press go together but for who's benefit?
Modern demagoguery also makes use of oratory, even
to a tremendous extent, if one considers the election speeches a modern
candidate has to deliver. But the use of
the printed word is more enduring. The political publicist, and above all the
journalist, is nowadays the most important representative of the demagogic
species. . .
It
is almost never acknowledged that the responsibility of the journalist is far
greater, and that the sense of responsibility of every honorable journalist is,
on the average, not a bit lower than that of the scholar, but rather, as the
war has shown, higher. This is because, in the very nature of the case,
irresponsible journalistic accomplishments and their often terrible effects are
remembered.
Nobody
believes that the discretion of any able journalist ranks above the average of
other people, and yet that is the case. . . Naturally every politician of consequence
has needed influence over the press and hence has needed relations with the
press. . .
Politicians aside,
those wishing to be in positions of leadership often acquire or find the need
to involve journalistic work praising their positivity while assuring the
public all the while the press media following suit with sensationalism to gain not only
readership but reader interest which in mass can sway the readers opinions.
Interestingly
enough, I thought of the media mogul William Hearst in America during this
similar time period that used his powers of influence over press and media
companies he owned for his own political gains.Hearst made possible and affordable for the immigrants, the poor and the
working class to read his sensationalized newspapers – he believed media was
for the masses. However, documentaries of Hearst also indicated that he created headlines and sensationalized and at
times fabricated news stories – he would have a woman faint in the street, have
the ambulance called and the woman taken to the hospital in an attempt to create
local news stories.Hearst used his
press to leverage against competition, discredit individuals at his whim if he
disliked someone and even ruining someone’s reputation – Orson Wells who starred in the movie
Citizen Kane gained notable controversy because the movie was a portrayal of
then powerful media mogul William Hearst.I surmise Weber recalled this type of behavior with people of power in
using the press media to deliver to the masses for their support of achieving
their next prospective seat of power, that, “irresponsible journalistic
accomplishments and their often terrible effects are remembered.” (Weber,
p.11).
Thus far, the
journalist has had favorable chances only in the Social Democratic party.
Within the party, editorial positions have been predominantly in the nature of
official positions, but editorial positions have not been the basis for
positions of leadership.
In the bourgeois
parties, on the whole, the chances for ascent to political power along this
avenue have rather become worse, as compared with those of the previous
generation.
One last thing I’d like to
add about the above caption; Weber’s brief introduction touching on the subject of possible
censorship within the ‘state’ or political party – that editorial positions correspond
to official positions. Sensationalism or
‘yellow journalism’ which may have worked in previous generations much like how
Hearst behaved on the whole, will not work.
Although journalists may be put on a pedestal, they are in a position of
a greater responsibility and as Weber somewhat sarcastically pointed out and
referenced Alfred Harmsworth, “’Lord, Northcliffe’” who exercised massive
influence over the British popular opinion especially during the time of war
using advertising almost as propaganda - “The advertising business is also the
avenue along which, during the war, the attempt was made to influence the press
politically . . .” I ponder how much press freedom there were; press freedom in America endured countless court battles until recently as the 20th century, yet still to this date you hear around the world deaths and murders of journalists.
Much
like the U.S. Constitution and its legal system, The Reich Constitution of
August 11th 1919 or Weimar Constitution, in the following Articles
reveals to me the attempt made by the Weimar Republic at providing hierarchy
and structure within their government.
Article 12 As far and as much the Reich does not make use of its right to
legislate, the states are entitled to legislate. This does not apply to the
areas in which the Reich has the exclusive right to legislate.
When it comes to state laws pertaining Article 7 Number 13, the Reich
government, inasfar the welfare of the Reich is concerned, has the right to
object.
Article 13 Reich law breaks state law.
If there are doubts or opposing opinions regarding if a state regulation
harmonizes with Reich law, the respective Reich or central state authority
may request, according to the specifications of Reich law, the Reich
supreme court to decide in the matter.
Similarly as how the U.S. proceeds with allowing independent
State legislature albeit Federal legislature taking precedence in matters which
elevates to a Federal level, the above Articles state the proposed elevation of
law in which the Reich supreme court shall make the ultimate decision; in the U.S.,
State legal matters may be appealed in higher state courts which at times may
even get elevated to Federal courts and ultimately to the SCOTUS.
Besides hierarchy and structure outlined about the Weimar
government system, what enticed me more was Article 118 and about the German’s
individual freedom involved.
Article 118 Every German is
entitled, within the bounds set by general law, to express his opinion
freely in word, writing, print, image or otherwise. No job contract may
obstruct him in the exercise of this right; nobody may put him at a
disadvantage if he makes use of this right.
There is no censorship; in case of the cinema, other regulations may be
established by law. Also in order to combat trashy and obscene literature,
as well as for the protection of the youth in public exhibitions and
performances legal measures are permissible.
Article 123 All Germans have the
right to assemble peacefully and unarmed; such assemblies do not require
any prior notification or special permit.
A Reich law can require prior notification for assemblies taking place in
the open, and it can, in case of imminent danger for public security,
stipulate that such assemblies in the open may be prohibited.
However loosely termed, much of it sounds similarly to
parts of our First Amendment including freedom of speech, expression, assembly and
possibly freedom of press. Also, Article
137, not captioned due to its length, stated freedom of religion that “there is
no state church.” I wonder if the
Article also aimed to include Press freedom.
If left solely as an individual freedom as “Every German is entitled”,
of course within other guidelines, or “within the bounds set by general law”, I
also wonder what the implications of libel or defamation laws there may be. I surmise much of their defamation laws would
have been established through various court cases as is in the U.S., how the
loosely termed First Amendment had to endure countless court cases as well as changes
in time along with sensible, intellectual Supreme Court justices for the law to
be interpreted, structured and established as precedent.
It was cheaper to burn paper money instead of using it to purchase coal or wood for heat.
What’s mind boggling is the simple fact that, however
brief the Weimar Republic, with the type of Constitution established and
exercised, how much faith did all those Germans lose about their government to give
up or allowed the giving up of such freedoms to the authoritarian then to a
dictatorship Nazi Regime. Of course, as
Professor stated in his lecture, there were other factors involved,
the turmoil and the aftermath of the revolution which put stress on the economy
that eventually led to the hyper-inflation period that made the Germans much
more insecure about their government which eventually made easier for Hitler
and the Nazi’s to come to power; Hitler used Article 48 which nullified all Articles mentioned above and more along with the power to use armed forces. As
voiced in class lecture, I still feel strongly that Germans almost as sheep in
a herd longed for authoritarianism not because they were simpleton as sheep but
because of the constant on-going peril they’ve encountered decades long. For example, the usage of the word “Reich” continued
even after the Kaiser had been abandoned – I’m thinking in terms of the German’s
conscious or their subconscious in their acceptance of the authoritarian “Empire”.
Perhaps this factor is related and can
be said that they did not want to let go?
