Olena Semenyaka, National University of “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”

Friedrich Nietzsche as the “Founder” of Conservative Revolution

Annotation: the article seeks to disclose the phenomenon of Conservative Revolution as an
attempt at the fullest projection of Nietzscheanism in philosophical and social fields, in
particular, resting on the work of its face and recognized Nietzschean Ernst Jünger who earned it
the fame of the “supermodern.” In turn, results of polemic by Martin Heidegger, another key
thinker of this current, with omnipresent in Jünger's work Friedrich Nietzsche's motif of the
transvaluation of all values have become not only the deepest philosophical reconstruction,
criticism and “upgrading” of Nietzscheanism but also the groundbreaking milestone of
Nietzsche-studies and, as of now, the pinnacle of discussions on the prospects for overcoming
nihilism and a new Western metaphysics.

Key words: Friedrich Nietzsche, Nietzscheanism, Third Way, Conservative Revolution,

archeofuturism, supermodern, nihilism, active nihilism, transvaluation of all values, Superman,
new metaphysics, Ernst Jünger, Martin Heidegger, titanism.

Out of intellectual phenomena and social currents that count Friedrich Nietzsche
among their predecessors, Conservative Revolution (further CR. – OS) occupies a
unique place as a guide for a comprehensive translation of his philosophical
leitmotifs into distinct conceptions in the fields of philosophy of history,
anthropology and philosophy of subject, political philosophy, including the
civilizational analysis, ethnography and geopolitics, philosophy of culture,
philosophy of religion and even philosophy of technology.

According to Swiss-German historian Armin Mohler, who introduced this formula

in a prolific albeit debatable study “Conservative Revolution in Germany: 1918–
1932” [80] to describe an intellectual milieu hostile to the “ideas of 1789,” CR, as
a cultural and political current, has taken shape in the interwar Germany, but its
conceptual relevance transcends these temporal and geographic boundaries.
Although later metaphysical discussions of Nietzscheanism 1 within the current are
lacking in his pioneer historiographic research (1950), the very number of critical
monographs attempting to question the integrity of CR and simply deconstruct the
term speaks in favor of its heuristic value 2 [81]. As of now, CR, with or without the
quotation marks, gave birth to quite a rich tradition of academic investigation as a
thought-provoking, interdisciplinary and even paradigm-shifting subject.

It has become a commonplace to argue that this movement’s political ambitions,

regardless of palpable responsibility for the collapse of the Weimar republic, have

1
See “Historical Dictionary of Nietzscheanism” [6].
2
Stefan Breuer, the most influential critic of CR as a coherent current, in the end, could not help
using this term himself and listed it among the most successful inventions of contemporary
history of ideas [5, 1].
come to end in 1933 and thus have never been fully implemented in practice.
However, a descriptive value of Mohler’s monograph allowed researchers to
consider the accomplished “CR” even such remote in time and space historical
phenomena as the Restoration of Meiji in Japan, also regarded as the Japanese
version of “modernization without westernization,” which started in 1868 [99].
Facing this broad historiographic request, one could paraphrase Voltaire by saying
that even if there was no German CR, it should have been invented.

Yet, these conservative-revolutionary principles would have never been specified

and applied to a wider scope of historical trends unless Friedrich Nietzsche, as an
admitted “godfather” of the movement, had stated the ongoing decadence in the
Western part of the world. His discussion of the European crisis in cultural,
geopolitical, institutional, etc. terms corresponds with a variety of conceptual
responses to this condition by key conservative-revolutionary thinkers of the 20th
century (Oswald Spengler’s “decline of the West,” “Prussian Socialism” and
“Caesarism,” Arthur Moeller van den Bruck’s “new conservatism / new
socialism,” “young nations” and “the Third Empire,” Carl Schmitt’s geopolitics of
large spaces as “pluriversum,” Ernst Jünger’s “heroic realism,” “new nationalism”
and “the United States of Europe,” Werner Sombart’s “creative destruction” in
economics, Gottfried Benn’s “Dionysian” expressionism and art “after nihilism,”
etc.). However, they would indeed have fallen apart had it not been for a
metaphysical foundation of European “illness” diagnosed by Nietzsche as the
spread of the desert of nihilism3.

Moreover, witnessing the upheaval brought by the First World War, theorists,
researchers and “fellow travelers” of the conservative-revolutionary movement,
above all, Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger, Armin Mohler and Martin Heidegger,
offered the most exhaustive philosophical interpretation of Nietzscheanism as part
of the discussion on a new or “the second beginning” of Western metaphysics, at
least the prospects for overcoming nihilism, thus challenging a literal
understanding of the “end-of-philosophy” thesis. In other words, this largely
comparative, or rather genealogical study also brings out that the relation between
“theoria” and “praxis” stemming from the modernity is not necessarily mediated
by ideology.

3
Needless to say, historians of philosophy are interested in metaphysical, not strictly social aspects of CR, which
otherwise would be addressed in this research in more detail. In this respect, vitalist Nietzscheanism in Jünger’s
interwar political journalism is less important for this study than his rethinking of Nietzsche’s active nihilism as
titanism and philosophical-historical sophistication of the “transvaluation of all values.”
That being said, far from explaining obscurum per obscurius (Nietzscheanism via
CR and vice versa), the article seeks to examine metaphysical and practical
conclusions drawn by the conservative-revolutionary movement from the pivotal
Nietzsche’s concept of transvaluation of all values, thus suggesting a heuristic way
out of the lasting “battle over Nietzsche” between the Left and the Right. A proof
of Nietzsche’s visionary genius, narrow political appropriations of his name have
almost cost him a place at the philosophic Olympus and should be firmly rejected.
Besides, without exaggeration, Ernst Jünger’s and Martin Heidegger’s reception of
Nietzscheanism, as well as their own polemic over it, is the groundbreaking
milestone in Nietzsche-studies which cannot be skipped over in the given research.

More precisely, this interwar German movement, which has always been escaping
strict definitions, owes its reputation of the “ideocratic,” “metapolitical,” “neither
right-wing, nor left-wing” Third Way precisely to embracing Nietzscheanism as a
means of Weberian “re-enchantment of the world” [63]. Indeed, in social sciences
and humanities, it was no sooner than Nietzsche put forward the event of the
“death of god” that ideological and, basically, purely modern perplexities of the
Left and Right have become a low priority compared to transhistorical (epochal)
interplay of modernism and antimodernism, broader, the progressive and
regressive vector. The latter were partially grasped by derivative intuitions of
reactionary modernism [38], organological supermodern [63, 109; 40],
archeofuturism [10], etc. in reference to Nietzsche-inspired phenomenon of CR.

Fairly enough, the majority of conservative-revolutionary researches shedding light

on the alternative of the classic triad (“premodern-modern-postmodern”)
periodization are dedicated namely to Ernst Jünger’s work as a convinced follower
of Nietzsche and, according to his longtime secretary Armin Mohler, the most
representative theorist of CR. It is his creativity that is considered the brightest
example of the alternative of the Enlightenment project of modernization and is
widely known for its futuristic and even forecasting value [65]. Dramatic failed
attempts by Mohler to bring Jünger back to politics and make him head the
endeavors of a post-war German generation eloquently coincided with Jünger’s
growing focus on the metaphysical revolution in the history of the West followed
by the thematic polemic with Heidegger in the 50-s.

Despite a misleading title, which was not favored by futuristic Jünger, such a
super- (not to be confused with post-) modern alignment is the main reason why it
is hard to classify CR, which otherwise shows all signs of a distinct and consistent
theoretic current, as the classic fourth ideology crowning liberalism, socialism and
conservatism. Likewise, it shows the absurdity of any strict ideological attribution
of Nietzscheanism as the intellectual legacy ahead of its time, the conviction
repeatedly expressed by Nietzsche himself.

For the past over half a century since the classic study by Mohler was out (1950),
little advance has been made in this field. More precisely, there is enough literature
dealing with the complexity of Nietzsche’s social ideas and their place in his entire
body of work; the point is that Nietzsche-debates have long reached such a level of
intensity that the conflict of interpretations unfolds between recognizable
humanitarian paradigms, schools and traditions rather than breaking readings of his
attitude to certain “-isms.” In other words, today, there is a rivalry between the
basic insights into what Nietzscheanism is all about: emancipation or the will to
power, decadence or vitalism, tradition or revolution, etc.

Ukrainian historiographers of the subject are lucky to have at their disposal 1000-
page research of Nietzsche’s corpus and biography [110] by leading Ukrainian
specialist on Nietzscheanism Taras Lyuty, which offers an exhaustive overview of
Nietzsche’s reception in Germany, including Jünger’s and Heidegger’s
contribution, France, Great Britain, United States, Italy, Spain, Russia, Poland, the
Eastern world and Ukraine. At the same time, multifaceted yet integral elaboration
of Nietzsche’s thought within the conservative-revolutionary current deserves to be
a separate challenging chapter of modern Nietzscheana.

In this light, it is especially remarkable that in 2016 in Germany took place the
annual Oßmannstedter Nietzsche Colloquium entitled “Nietzsche and the
Conservative Revolution,” which offers a searched balanced account of
Nietzscheanism beyond extremes of ideological reductionism and mere
aestheticism. Held under the aegis of the Klassik Stiftung Weimar and the
Nietzsche Commentary of Heidelberg Academy of Sciences headed by Prof.
Andreas Urs Sommer, it has become a wide interdisciplinary event which
highlighted the Nietzsche-exegesis by such diverse conservative-revolutionary
authors and related figures as Oswald Spengler, Martin Heidegger, Ernst Jünger,
Carl Schmitt, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Ernst Niekisch, Armin Mohler, Hugo
von Hofmannsthal, and others. Nietzsche and Dostoevsky, “radical aristocratism”
of Rainer Maria Rilke, and Nietzsche’s merit in the very introduction of the term
“CR” were also addressed at this surprise colloquium. Its results were published in
an over 600-page collection of conference materials [89].

Previously, the founding Young Nietzsche Researchers’ Forum of the Friedrich

Nietzsche College of the Weimar Classic Foundation in Oßmannstedt (2014), with
the participation of Prof. Sommer, has already undertaken an uneasy study on the
thematic complex “Nietzsche-Politics-Power,” which has prepared the audience for
the lesser-known comparative background of CR. Back then, the ambiguity of
Nietzsche’s exposure of contradictions tearing a bourgeois society apart was
problematized as the issue begging for the further exploration. The trajectory of
thought outlined by the event’s organizers was quite similar to the idea behind the
given research: from the fact that Nietzsche’s works contained many apparently
reactionary elements to their inherently transhistorical and, nolens volens,
metaideological nature, which inevitably leads to the phenomenon of CR and the
quest for a new metaphysics. Thus, the First Oßmannstedter Nietzsche Colloquium
finally allowed positive yet unapologetic reconstruction of possible outcomes of
his “criticism of modernity” as stated in “Ecce Homo”: “This book (1886) is in all
essentials a critique of modernity, modern science, modern art, even modern
politics, along with indications of an opposite type that is anything but modern, a
noble, yea-saying type” [85, 80].

Indeed, so far, attempts to convert Nietzsche into politics have been mostly
associated with the Nietzsche-Archiv’s destiny in the service of National Socialist
ideology thanks to its ardent supporter Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, philosopher’s
sister. However, the same destiny largely befell the work of conservative-
revolutionary Nietzscheans, the brightest example being “The Third Empire” 4 by
Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, the author of “Tschandala Nietzsche,” “Führende
Deutsche” and other Nietzsche-themed writings.

Three overviews of Nietzsche’s legacy of that period deemed the most important
by Karl Jaspers were the readings by Ludwig Klages, Alfred Baeumler and Ernst
Bertram [49, 467]. Oddly enough, Heidegger, who, especially in his late period,
exposed Nietzsche’s biologism [28, 168–170], in the 30-s polemicized with the
biological interpretation of Nietzscheanism targeting both Klages and Spengler in
lectures [e.g. 24, 103–116]. To be fair, the late Heidegger’s understanding of
Nietzsche, which may be already traced in “Contributions to Philosophy” (1936–
38) [20, 218–219], derived Nietzsche’s biologism from metaphysics of
subjectivity, more precisely, subjectivity of the “will to power,” so it was different
from vitalist and organicist interpretations by Klages and Spengler. Anyway, in
this, he solidarized with Baeumler [29, 297], professor of philosophy and an
ideologue of National Socialism. In contrast with his colleague Ernst Krieck,
Baeumler did not reject Nietzsche as a philosopher who opposed “socialism,
nationalism and racial thinking” [66, 31], so only National Socialist readings of
Nietzsche could overlap with the conservative-revolutionary ones, not vice versa.
Likewise, Heidegger denied Nietzsche’s imperialism (“Neither does the “grand

4
Rendered as “Empire” instead of “Reich” in its condensed English edition [79] (first translated by Emily Overend
Lorimer in 1934) precisely to disambiguate it from the National Socialist political regime.
style” want an “aesthetic culture,” nor does the “grand politics” want the
exploitative power politics of imperialism” [31, 158]) and provided the deepest
philosophical account of Nietzscheanism in the two-volume “Nietzsche” work.

Later, thanks to the most influential left-wing readings of Nietzsche, in particular,

the second issue of Georges Bataille’s review “Acéphale” (1937) eloquently
entitled “Nietzsche and the Fascists: A Reparation” [2], the “blond beast’s” herald
was fully rehabilitated by French postmodernist philosophers and, broadly, New
Leftist thinkers like Peter Sloterdijk who incorporated Nietzsche’s legacy into the
sociocultural analysis and critique of ideology following in the footsteps of Max
Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. But the price for this insightful yet, by and
large, another arbitrary and incomplete reception of Nietzsche’s ideas was their
“methodological” reduction to Paul Ricoeur’s “philosophy of suspicion” and
genealogical inquiry in the vein of Michel Foucault.

As a result, such inconvenient albeit pivotal for Nietzsche concepts as great

politics, a new aristocracy (“a ruling caste”) of a united Europe, anti-egalitarianism
(“a pathos of distance”) and a contempt for a “democratic mediocrity” along with a
reverence for free thinking, etc., which were objectively highlighted by Jaspers in
his introduction to “Corpus Nietzscheanum,” were passed over in silence. Alluding
to Bataille, new reparations to Nietzsche are needed.

For it is enough to look through editions like “The Cambridge Companion to

Nietzsche” or “Historical Dictionary of Nietzscheanism,” to realize that, initially,
reactionary elements in Nietzsche’s thought were too obvious for the succeeding
generation not to be astonished by his enthusiastic readings “from the Left.” In
contrast with an impressive marriage of socialism with Nietzscheanism and Social
Darwinism in Jack London’s novels and short stories, Georg Lukács, one of the
masterminds behind “Western Marxism,” after a short period of fascination,
confidently labeled Nietzsche as “as founder of irrationalism in the imperialist
period” in the eponymous chapter of his work, “The Destruction of Reason”
(1952), as well as portrayed him [70, 37–94, 309–399], Arthur Schopenhauer,
Wilhelm Dilthey, Oswald Spengler and others as precursors of Adolf Hitler.

On the other hand, according to Ernst Troeltsch, German philosopher of history,

theologian and, along with Thomas Mann and Hugo von Hofmannsthal, one of the
first promoters of the term “CR” [107, 454], only after the First World War,
through “war experience,” Nietzsche’s thought was purified of its “sickly and
exaggerated elements and thus had set ‘new aims’” [106, 75, quoted after 64, 48]
for the German people. Jürgen Habermas confirms that Nietzsche reached the peak
of popularity in Germany’s interwar period, when “the ideas of 1914” were
confronted with “the ideas of 1789,” noting that “thinkers as various as Oswald
Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Gottfried Benn, Ernst Jünger, Martin Heidegger, and
even Arnold Gehlen show affinity with this background” [18, 209].

In other words, those standing at the origins of CR partly shared discontent with
Nietzsche’s “irrationalism” by a conventional line “Lukács – Frankfurt School/
Habermas.” As T. Lyuty’s research shows, Nietzsche’s reception (not only in
Germany and France but also Fascist Italy and Falangist Spain) was quite
complicated, getting more controversial in the aftermath of both world wars and
including many instances of both leftist and rightist apologies of Nietzscheanism.

Not incidentally, the national-revolutionary wing of CR, the most left-leaning

among its currents, offered the most inclusive readings of Nietzsche. Just to name
a few, Jünger’s mentor Hugo Fischer, who was close to the circle of sociologist
Hans Freyer, an author of programmatic “Revolution from the Right” (1931),
wrote both “Lenin: Machiavelli of the East” (1933) and “Nietzsche the Apostate”
(1931) [12] in which he argued that Nietzsche was a more profound diagnostician
of alienation than Karl Marx [1, 194–195], and Friedrich Hielscher, an architect
of pagan “Das Reich” (1931), who described Nietzsche as the “protector of the
past, as crusher of the present, as transformer of the future” [41, 200, quoted after
1, 153]. National Bolshevik Ernst Niekisch admired Nietzsche in his early texts,
although after 1945, in fact, he has become a founder of Marxist criticism of
Nietzsche in the GDR [92].

Likewise, the French New Right in the person of their “godfather,” Italian thinker
Giorgio Locchi, who polemicized with Lukács’ blaming Hitlerism on Nietzsche,
agreed with postmodern counterparts like G. Bataille, Maurice Blanchot, Gilles
Deleuze, Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard and others in
their positive assessment of Nietzsche’s prevailing “revisionism” of modern. It is
precisely therein that we encounter contemporary attempts to interpret
Nietzscheanism, at a glance, “from the Right” by converting it into a new
humanitarian school, which would have hardly gained momentum without New
Leftist praise of Nietzsche’s “centauric” nature and a Dionysian revolt against the
modernity in the vein of Sloterdijk’s “Thinker On Stage: Nietzsche’s Materialism”
(1986) [99]. Locchi, who gave an impetus to thinkers as varied as Dominique
Venner (i.a., an author of “Ernst Jünger: Another European Destiny”), Robert
Steuckers, Pierre Vial, Pierre Krebs, Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye and others,
directly linked Nietzscheanism to German CR and was the first to define
Nietzsche’s view of history as “spherical.”
Key works by Locchi for our study, “The Meaning of History” (1971), “Wagner,
Nietzsche and the Myth of Suprahumanism” (1982), “Martin Heidegger and
Conservative Revolution” (1988), also published in response to “Heidegger’s
case,” etc., reveal a threefold structure of history “unlocked” by initiators of the
discontinuity with the tradition of preceding two thousand years [13, 211] and
founders of the suprahumanist myth: Richard Wagner, above all, as an author of
“The Ring of the Nibelung” and Friedrich Nietzsche reconciled with him and
portrayed as his disciple. Having paralleled Wagner’s “aristocratic socialism” with
CR, Locchi criticizes not only Lukács but also Adorno’s take on Wagner along
with the entire Frankfurt School. According to him, suprahumanism, inspired by
Johann Fichte’s discovery of Germania 5, revolts against the “egalitarian” Judeo-
Christian worldview and, as opposed to a preventive function of critical theory,
carries out a creative mission [67].

In spite of Heidegger’s dismissal of Nietzsche’s rhetoric of values as a pinnacle of

modern metaphysics of subjectivity [26, 101–102; 30, 209–267; 28, 83–94], the
axiological, not cosmological understanding of the eternal recurrence by Locchi
and his disciples 6 is influenced by Heidegger’s criticism of metaphysics,
anthropological thinking and humanism, as well as derivative conceptions of
temporality and history [21]. As a result, cyclic and especially linear conceptions
of history are rejected by these followers of Nietzsche as ill-suited for the ways of
a free-willed human being famously defined by Heidegger as transcendence [21,
351]. The axiological interpretation of the eternal recurrence implies that culture’s
underlying values are being reaffirmed over the course of time. However,
innocence of life’s becoming, within the conception, means that the past (as a
reservoir of archetypal patterns) and the future (as the potentiality of conditions to
re-enact them), basically, are interrelated functions of the polycentric present as a
playground for historical dynamic in any possible direction [see in more detail: 90,
117–126].

For instance, Guillaume Faye, whose theory of archeofuturism as a “dynamic

worldview” is largely inspired by Nietzsche, Spengler and Jünger, argued that

5
Not to be confused with Nietzsche’s criticism of petty Germanness.
6
The opposition of the “Judeo-Christian” and “archaic” worldview, “history” and “cosmos” was popularized by
Romanian historian of religion Mircea Eliade whose name is fairly included in the related tradition of thought.
Although in the introduction to his magnum opus “Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return” (1949) he
considered Nietzsche’s interpretation of an eponymous Greek myth purely modern [8], the longing for the world’s
re-sacralization, which, according to Eliade, is promised by annual ritual participation of an archaic man in the New
Year recreation of the world (partaking of the myth’s cosmological function), does correlate with “open
opportunities” of the eternal recurrence as the axiological notion. This polemics with the contradiction detected in
Nietzsche’s thought by Löwith (see below), actually, is shared by Eliade who believes that the myth frees humanity
from the cage of history, more precisely, predestination of the Judeo-Christian eschatology rather than thrusts into
the prison of nature.
Nietzsche’s legacy should be firmly placed on the side of the Right, or rather
“revolutionary Right” in the sense discussed above, especially his vision of the
united Europe [17]. To mark the difference between the “old” and “new” Right,
Faye famously contrasted Nietzscheanism with the strictly anti-modern school of
integral traditionalism (“For some Guénon, and for others Nietzsche” [10, 174])
implying, above all, an ability to embrace the very epitome and the vehicle of
modernity – technology.

To disclose this changing worldview, Faye complemented the “deconstructive”

pole of Nietzscheanism, which is usually explored by left-leaning humanitarians,
with an affirmative idea of the eternal recurrence, as follows: “Needless to say,
Archeofuturism is based on the Nietzschean idea of Umwertung – the radical
overthrowing of the modern values – and on a spherical view of history” [10, 74].
He emphasized that the eternal recurrence concerns “the identical” rather than “the
same.” Different historical forms and institutions undergo a metamorphosis, yet
their function remains unchanged: for instance, a nuclear-powered ballistic missile
submarine as a modification of an Athenian trireme [10, 75] 7.

Carefully studied by Locchi, Armin Mohler did not consider Nietzsche just one of
the conservative-revolutionary “church fathers” like Martin Heidegger or Stefan
George [80, 69–70]. According to Mohler, precisely Nietzsche’s philosophy, also
far beyond Germany [80, 87], shaped CR as the revolt against a linear conception
of history, albeit not incompatible with the latter’s elements, and the very logic of
progressivism. Quite remarkably, Mohler’s thesis on CR (1949) was supervised by
Karl Jaspers, another Nietzsche scholar famous in his own right.

It is Heidegger’s disciple Karl Löwith (“Nietzsche’s Philosophy of the Eternal

Recurrence” and “From Hegel to Nietzsche: The Revolution in 19th Century
Thought”)8 who is credited by Mohler for one of the earliest insights (1935 and
1941, respectively) into the essence of Nietzscheanism as the self-overcoming of
nihilism springing from the “death of god” through the will to the eternal
recurrence of the same. Although Löwith detected a contradiction between the
anthropological (“self-eternalization”) and cosmic (natural) eternal recurrence
which includes and cancels the former [68, 60], he viewed Nietzscheanism as the

7
Here, Nietzscheanism almost coincides with futurism the technological advantages of which, in Faye’s opinion, are
artificially restrained by the egalitarian and humanistic modernity. The spherical view of history, likewise, has
nothing to do with a cyclic return to the past, which, as Faye claims, has failed and has led to the catastrophe of
modernity. Instead, he employs a metaphor of a billiard ball which chaotically moves across the table. After a
number of spins, the same point might touch the cloth several times, but its position in space will be different. As a
result, Nietzscheanism underlies the “re-emergence of archaic social configurations in a new context” [10, 74],
which is the basic intuition behind archeofuturism.
8
However, Löwith expressed his concern with Jünger’s interwar attack on a bourgeois individual in this book [69].
quest to “renew, in the end, the ancient view of the world on the peak of anti-
Christian modernity” [68, 74].

Referring to the often-quoted Löwith’s sentence about the oscillation of the

German spirit of the 19th century between the two endpoints in the persons of
Hegel and Nietzsche, with lesser centers of gravity like Marx, Kierkegaard and
Dostoevsky, Mohler emphatically contrasts Nietzsche with Hegel as the last great
representative of the linear thought [80, 88]. Since the rebirth anticipated by
conservative revolutionaries is possible only within the cyclic or mythological time
enabling the access to eternity, Mohler praises Löwith’s work as the brightest
philosophical-historical account of the “Interregnum,” the interim between the
decline of the old order and the emergence of the new [80, 88].

Thus, temporality of the state of nihilism is clearly encrypted in Nietzsche’s

allegories of the turning point in the course of the transvaluation of all values, the
Great Noon in particular. The promise of the Interregnum’s end surmounted by a
Superman echoes the passage from “To Genealogy of Morals,” which itself is a
commentary to “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”: “… this bell stroke of noon and of the
great decision that liberates the will again and restores its goal to the earth and his
hope to man; this Antichrist and anti-nihilist; this victor over God and nothingness
– he must come one day” [see 68, 56].

Having combined an etymological interpretation of revolution (from Latin “re-

volutio”) as “rotation,” “spinning around,” “volution” with Moeller van den
Bruck’s “new conservatism” as the restoration of eternal principles rather than the
return to the past, Mohler made Nietzsche’s idea of eternal recurrence (meaning to
the Origin) the common denominator for five different trends of CR, from Young
Conservatives to National Revolutionaries (as the most influential). All of them
had practical manifestation, and some of them were revolutionary also in quite a
literal sense, expectedly laying stress on the “active-nihilistic” phase of the
transvaluation of all values.

To recall, as follows from the notes to “The Will to Power,” posthumously

complied and published Nietzsche’s magnum opus (at least for Heidegger), in
which constituents of this metaphysical dynamics were for the first time revealed,
so-called active nihilism is to be distinguished from its passive counterpart. Passive
nihilism is a sign of the spirit’s fatigue, whereas active nihilism, quite the reverse,
indicates surpassing of outworn ideals, is transitory and paves the path towards
new values. This key fragment is the same both in the critical edition of
Nietzsche’s Collected Works by Colli and Montinari and in the 1901 compilation
[87, 350–351; 84,157–158].
Yet Old Gunpowder-Head, as Jünger used to call Nietzsche [51], provided
conservative-revolutionary luminaries like him not only with recipes for social
change. For historians of philosophy, connections between Nietzsche’s legacy and
CR (which is the subject matter of the study) are of a special interest given that the
famous “turn” of Heidegger towards a conservative criticism of technology and
final abandonment of transcendentalism and voluntarism was triggered namely by
his familiarization with Jünger’s conservative-revolutionary classic: “Total
Mobilization” (1930) and “The Worker. Domination and Gestalt” (1932) [11, 718].

As believed by Heidegger, Jünger was the last Nietzschean and even “the only real
follower of Nietzsche” [36, 227] whose early philosophy was the culminating point
of Western metaphysics. Heidegger arrived at this conclusion within his two
seminars on Jünger’s Worker right after it was out and during the winter semester
at Freiburg University in 1939–1940. His extensive observations, as well as notes
on other Jünger’s texts comprise the entire 90th volume of Heidegger’s Collected
Works, “On Ernst Jünger,” which was revealed to the public in 2004 [36]. English
translation of its crucial fragments may be found in “The Heidegger Reader” edited
by Günter Figal [33, 189–206]. In one of them, Heidegger addresses Nietzsche’s
metaphysics in relation to Western history after the First World War and claims
that “only Ernst Jünger has grasped something essential there” [33, 192], i.a.
contrasting his insight with “superficial” Spengler’s reading and mere cooption of
certain Nietzsche’s ideas by Gabriele D’Annunzio and Benito Mussolini.

In the 1945 reflection upon his 1933 rectorial address, Heidegger recalls that
Nietzsche’s words “God is dead” [25, 111] were mentioned there precisely in the
light of predicted by Jünger emergence of a planetary state as a pinnacle of the
modern will to power encompassing everything regardless of “whether it is called
communism, or fascism, or world democracy” [22, 375–376]. In the 1933 speech
entitled “The German Student as the Worker” [23, 205–206], he for the first time
publically referred to Jünger and highly estimated his 1932 opus magnum. Yet
Heidegger was scared of this tendency and wanted to avert it.

The late Jünger, in Heidegger’s opinion, still applied the language of old
metaphysics (of subjectivity) to describe the advent of the new. Jünger’s essay
“Over the Line” (1950) was published in a collection of articles dedicated to
Heidegger’s 60th birthday anniversary and edited by Hans-Georg Gadamer [58;
57]. Likewise, Heidegger’s reply “On the Line” (1955) appeared in a jubilee
edition in honor of Jünger turning 60 [34], and its extended version entered
Heidegger’s Collected Works under the title “To the Question of Being” [37].
Their intense correspondence lasted till Heidegger’s death in 1976 [9].
In this respect, Heidegger’s early interpretation of Nietzscheanism as a search for a
unifying force that is akin to the purpose of art in the age of Romanticism and thus
is capable of bridging the gaps between disintegrated fields of modernity [19, 97–
99] was much closer to the views on Nietzsche’s “bequest” held by Jünger brothers
and Mohler. Indeed, in “The Will to Power as Art,” the lecture course on Nietzsche
delivered at the University of Freiburg-im-Breisgau in 1936–37, Heidegger echoed
Nietzsche’s assessment of art as “the anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist, anti-nihilist par
excellence” [87, 521] by defining it as the “distinctive countermovement to
nihilism” led by the “artist-philosopher” [31, 69–76].

Nietzsche as the philosopher who, in Habermas’ words, “entrusted the overcoming

of nihilism to the aesthetically revived Dionysian myth” [19, 99] was explored in-
depth by Friedrich Georg Jünger. In his eponymous book “Nietzsche” (1949) [60],
as well as famous trilogy “Greek myths” (1947) comprised of “The Greek Gods,”
“The Titans” and “The Heroes” [59], he paid a special attention to Pan as an
epitome of the wild and Dionysus as a redeemer from the misery of time. Both
motifs, as well as F. G. Jünger’s book “The Perfection of Technology” (written in
1939 and translated to English as “The Failure of Technology: Perfection Without
Purpose” [61]), intersect with the late Heidegger’s criticism of instrumental
rationality as “machination,” yet this time he considered Nietzsche’s philosophy
the endpoint of Western metaphysics rather than the salvation [see 112].

At any rate, the spiritual-historical diagnosis of the epoch set by Nietzsche

determined both Ernst Jünger’s metaphors of a great metaphysical transition (“the
magical zero point [of values],” “Interregnum,” “the line,” “the wall of time,” “the
return of the gods,” “approaching,” “whitening” understood not “as a nihilistic act,
but rather as a counter-offensive” [56, 9] and subsequent “spiritualization,” etc.)
and the middle Martin Heidegger’s conception of beyng-historical thinking “from
within” the fate of Being (currently, forgetfulness). In other words, and it coincides
with the scope of the article, Nietzscheanism fully underlies metaphysical
teleology of CR (from subject-centric Prometheism to “summoning the gods”),
which is indeed most pronounced in Ernst Jünger’s work.

In a positive sense, Mohler would fully agree with Heidegger’s opinion on

Jünger’s legacy as the fullest explication of Nietzsche’s metaphysics and, in
particular, the concept of the Superman 9 as a nihilist and at the same time a
legislator of new values. For that purpose, he singled out three kinds of nihilism:
the Western (French) one born out of satiety and weariness, just like passive
9
The resemblance, again, is homological, for Jünger’s philosophy of subject, at least in its gestalt-related part (see
below), rests on Leibniz’s “monad,” Plato’s “idea” and Goethe’s “urplant” rather than Nietzsche’s Superman in a
narrow sense.
nihilism described by Nietzsche, the Eastern (Russian) born out of life’s plentitude
and the “spatial” rejection of any boundaries, and the German striving for its own
exuberance just like many French are fond of German “barbarians” [80, 94].
However, Mohler interprets the German nihilism as conscious and volitional: as
opposed to other types, it is especially dangerous as the both destructive and
creative force capable of assuming new forms. Objectively highlighting the variety
of conservative-revolutionary currents and manifestations, Mohler, when it comes
to a metaphysical core of the subject, leaves no doubt that it boils down to
Nietzscheanism as the German or active nihilism exemplified in Ernst Jünger’s
work.

Mohler considers the gospel of this creative nihilism the first edition of “The
Adventurous Heart” (1929) in which Jünger introduces a focal concept of the
“magical zero point,” clearly referring to Nietzsche’s motif of the transvaluation of
all values, towards which, in the interwar period, had been marching through the
world on fire the “salamanders” like him. Mohler also draws attention to another
representative concept invented by the German veteran and writer: the paradoxical
combination of “Prussian anarchist” who rejects all existing orders, but only out of
reverence for something greater [80, 96]. As Jünger himself explains, this
“Prussian” rebellion needs explosives to free the living space for a new hierarchy
[54, 66]. Later, it will evolve into his model of the right-wing anarchist – the
Anarch10.

Finally, in the most frequently quoted excerpt from “The Adventurous Heart,” as if
Nietzschean prophecy of the “twilight of the idols” has come true, Jünger
comments on a sinister reputation gained at that time by his generation. To wit,
they were said to have been capable of destroying the temples. Far from denying it,
Jünger, in fact, objected that such a sentence simply bore no significance in the
futile epoch producing nothing but museums [53, 112].

Indeed, as Klemens von Klemperer observed, it was Nietzsche who, “in his
paradoxical position between conservatism and nihilism, between conserving and
destroying” [64, 39], gave birth to the well-known “dilemma of conservatism” that
has to counter the extremities of Enlightenment by its own means [16]. Thus it
comes as no surprise that the early Thomas Mann (1921) considered Nietzsche
“nothing but Conservative Revolution” [75, 598] meaning the synthesis
of “enlightenment and faith, freedom and bonds, spirit and flesh, ‘God’ and the
‘world’” [75, 597–598]. In this context, Mann referred to Henrik Ibsen’s search for
10
Apart from elucidating Nietzsche’s conception of creative nihilism, such political projections help to reveal that
subtle way in which Nietzscheanism may be converted into ideology, and never vice versa (when ideological
postulates receive philosophical substantiation).
“the third kingdom,” a Hegelian synthesis of the Pagan kingdom of man and flesh
and the Christian kingdom of God and spirit [75, 597], for the first time
problematized in Ibsen’s play “Emperor and Galilean” (1873) about Julian the
Apostate. It brings the continuity of Nietzscheanism and CR to a whole new level,
though in the introduction to the émigré journal “Measure and Value” (1937)
Mann underlined the metapolitical meaning of this aware of tradition yet future-
oriented blend of aristocratism and revolution [74, 801].

A new / secret kingdom and elite carrying this ideal in the vein of Nietzsche’s “On
the Future of our Educational Institutions,” two basic mythologemes of the
founding Young-Conservative current of CR, were introduced by Stefan George’s
Circle and poetry, especially collections “The Star of the Covenant” (1914) and
“The New Reich” (The Kingdom Come) (1928) [14, 15, also see Kantorowicz
(62)]. In turn, they were inspired by an allegiance to “Secret Germany” found,
above all, in Friedrich Hölderlin’s hymns, writings by Friedrich Schiller, Heinrich
Heine, Paul de Lagarde, Julius Langbehn, as well as the legend of sleeping
“mountain king” Friedrich I Barbarossa [43, 30–41].

Nietzscheanism as “radical aristocratism,” the formula first suggested by Georges

Brandes and personally approved by Nietzsche [83, 213], burst into blossom in
“Nietzsche: Attempt at a Mythology” (1918), the most popular book on Nietzsche
in Weimar Germany by the Circle’s and Mann’s associate Ernst Bertram, as well
as catalyzed Mann’s ideal of the “nobility of the spirit” [72]. Deep connections
between Nietzsche, George and Austrian prodigy Hugo von Hofmannsthal who,
like Mann, popularized the term “CR” in the field of cultural criticism in his 1927
address to students of the University of Munich “Literature as the Spiritual Space
of the Nation,” are also widely known [44; 103]. According to Hofmannsthal, the
Age of Enlightenment is nothing but a moment within the unfolding
countermovement of CR of a scope unknown to Europe [44, 412–413].

Mediated by Mann’s “Reflections of a Non-Political Man” (1918) equating the

political with alien to the Germans “democraticism” [73], the myth of a new
kingdom came to fruition in “The Third Empire” (1923) by the founder of Young
Conservatism Moeller van den Bruck partially sharing Nietzsche’s disdain for
Bismarck’s Second Reich. More politicized than Mann’s ideal of the third
kingdom, just like his anti-Weimar June Club helping Franz von Papen to become
the Chancellor of Germany in 1932, this conception, still, was ecumenical and
strongly influenced by the Third Testament as envisaged by Dmitry
Merezhkovsky, who sparked Moeller’s interest in Fyodor Dostoevsky, i.a. the
motif of the Third Rome, and helped him to publish the first German translation of
the writer’s Complete Works by Elisabeth Kaerrick (1906–1919) [7]. Both
conceptions, in Merezhkovsky’s case, emphatically [111], echoed a heretic
eschatological teaching by the 12th century mystic Joachim of Fiore, according to
which the Age of the Father (Old Testament) and the Age of the Son (New
Testament) will be followed by the Age of the Holy Spirit when man will ascend to
the direct contact with God in freedom and love [94].

Further politicization of the term “CR” thanks to Edgar Julius Jung (1932) 11, an
advisor and a speechwriter to von Papen, reached its peak in “political theology” of
Reich’s “crown lawyer” Schmitt, at first, also a confidant to von Papen and
General Kurt von Schleicher, the last Chancellor of Weimar Germany, initially
seeking to tame Hitler’s dictatorship within the confines of a more “Prussian” state
model [77, 301–302].

Again, these Nietzscheans did not fit in the real Third Reich: Moeller committed
suicide in 1925 and did not witness the appropriation of “The Third Empire” by the
self-proclaimed “drummer” of his ideas, Hitler [91, 278], George, who bequeathed
his vision of the Secret Germany to Claus von Stauffenberg [see in more detail 93],
the future leader of the anti-Hitler Prussian fronde, had emigrated and died before
he could rethink Goebbels’ invitation to head the renewed Prussian Academy of
Arts [105, 66], Jünger, as a popular military prosaic, sarcastically refused to join
the latter [97, 143], Benn, whose expressionist embrace of decadence, including
the rejection of a eugenic reading of the Superman 12, was condemned by the
regime, soon enough was expelled from its ranks [96, 237–238], Hielscher, who
led a clandestine resistance group, barely escaped the fate of the July 20 assassins
thanks to the interference of the Ahnenerbe managing director Wolfram Sievers,
albeit failed to return the favor at the trial over the latter [42: 424, 448–451], E. J.
Jung, like von Schleicher, was killed by the SS during the Night of the Long
Knives in 1934 [71, 220–226], Niekisch, an author of “Hitler, a German Calamity”
(1932) was repressed and imprisoned in a concentration camp [82], Spengler
resigned from the Board of Nietzsche Archive [108, 130–131], and so on. Only
Heidegger, who eventually also left the Board [95, 144–145], and Schmitt were

11
“By “conservative revolution” we mean the return to respect for all of those elementary laws and values without
which the individual is alienated from nature and God and left incapable of establishing any true order. In the place
of equality comes the inner value of the individual; in the place of socialist convictions, the just integration of people
into their place in a society of rank; in place of mechanical selection, the organic growth of leadership; in place of
bureaucratic compulsion, the inner responsibility of genuine self-governance; in place of mass happiness, the rights
of the personality formed by the nation” [50, 352].
12
“Since then we have studied the bionegative values, which are rather more harmful and dangerous to the race but
are a part of mind’s differentiation: art, genius, the disintegrative motifs of religion, degeneration; in short, all the
attributes of creativity” [3, 383].
willing to take advantage of official positions in the Third Reich. Collaboration
was so exceptional that the latest 2019 research by Mehring ranking Heidegger
among conservative revolutionaries underlines that such an attribution is possible
solely on the grounds of shared metaphysical ambitions [78, 33].

Apart from Hölderlin, Goethe and Nietzsche, George’s vision of the Secret
Germany also strongly influenced Hielscher, a friend of Martin Buber and an
editor of National-Revolutionary magazines “Der Vormarsch” and “Das Reich”
who created a unique panentheistic theology and closely cooperated with Jünger
[42, 216–225]. However, it was Jünger who revolutionized detached ideals of
Young Conservatives by reinterpreting the Dionysian principle in Nietzsche’s
philosophy of culture as the titanic principle of technology that defines the
modernity. Returning Heidegger’s reproach that Jünger, employing visual
metaphors of the metaphysical transition, was not a “thinker” [36, 263], Jünger
claimed that Heidegger lacked a clear political vision and that is why he hoped that
National Socialism would bring something new [39, 55]. At the same time,
Jünger’s own “clear” vision performed a critical function, for, except for a short
period of political involvement as a publicist, he remained “a seismograph of the
epoch” [92, 525]. Yet, in contrast with “cultural pessimist” Heidegger who
eventually concluded that “only a God could save us” [32], Jünger, in spite of an
apparent impact of Heidegger’s and F.G. Jünger’s presumed “technophobia,” was
unique in making the transvaluation of all values the programmatic quest of his
entire body of work.

Approaching the article’s conclusions, let us summarize the trajectory of this quest.
As the leader of the National-Revolutionary current and the author of “The
Worker,” the early Jünger, reflecting upon irreversible changes brought by the first
“industrial” war of 1914–18, elaborated rare positive remarks about socialism and
the labor movement in Nietzsche’s notes to “The Will to Power.” According to
them, the workers should learn to feel like soldiers and get honorarium instead of
payment [87, 350]. They will be headed by an ascetic caste concentrating the
plentitude of power. In the third section (1880) of “Human, All Too Human,”
Nietzsche invoked the machine analogy for warfare and centralized party politics
[86, 653]. Jünger developed both motifs [104, 146] in “The Worker” calling upon
the workers 13 to feel like masters and a new frontline aristocracy laying claim to
planetary domination [54: 76, 90].

13
In “The Worker,” work is understood as the all-pervading lifestyle brought by “titanic” industrialization and has
no relation to its didactic cultural purpose, individual or collective.
Similarly to Heidegger, technology in Jünger’s thought becomes the very epitome
of nihilism. Yet, he welcomes it as the most revolutionary power of the present and
models the conservative-revolutionary subject after this vessel of creative nihilism.
In the interwar period, Jünger describes the advent of a new human type carved by
the metaphysical gestalt of the Worker and associated with unchained titan
Prometheus “mobilizing the world by means of technology” [54, 165]. In the post-
war period, he transformed into Gaia’s son Antaeus drawing strength from the
earth and joining her revolt against the Olympians [52: 344–347, 580–582, 606–
607, 650–651, 659]. Conceived by industrial total mobilization in the aftermath of
the First World War, in the post-industrial society, soldier workers acquire softer
protean features, but Zarathustra’s maxim of staying true to the earth stands
paramount. According to the late Jünger, anthropocentric history is nothing but a
layer of geohistory [52: 478–479, 502, 506–507, 533, 544, 588–589, 655–656].

That is how the early Jünger’s active nihilism counterbalanced the Young-
Conservative fascination with the religious “Russian idea” and Dostoevsky’s
“revolution out of conservatism” [109, 355]. Stating the ongoing “geological
revolution” [114: 55–58], Jünger refers to the Joachist Age of the Holy Spirit [52,
414] only in “At the Wall of Time” (1959) when, remembering Nietzsche’s
formula of the Superman as the conqueror of god and nothing, the pursued self-
overcoming of nihilism enters the “creative” phase of challenging the nothing
itself. Already in 1934 essay “On Pain” Jünger gives the following assessment of
its proceedings: “We conclude, then, that we find ourselves in a last and indeed
quite remarkable phase of nihilism, characterized by the broad expansion of new
social orders with corresponding values yet to be seen” [55, 46]. In Klemperer’s
words, “tough Nietzscheans” Spengler, Jünger and Moeller van den Bruck, in fact,
“signed a pact with the devil” when took a risk to follow in Nietzsche’s footsteps
and attempted to turn nihilism against itself [64, 153].

Yet, in “Over the Line” (1950), Jünger optimistically referred to Nietzsche’s self-
description as “the first perfect nihilist of Europe who, however, has even now
lived through the whole of nihilism, to the end, leaving it behind, outside himself”
[87, 190; 88, Preface] as well as Dostoevsky’s novels like “Crime and
Punishment” promising a chance to overcome nihilism, to “recover” from it [57,
248–255]. The ways to do it he discussed in “The Forest Passage” (1951) and
“Eumeswil” (1977) featuring the models of a sovereign individual: first the Forest
Goer ostracized from a society, then a new Prussian anarchist, the Anarch, whose
creative and meaningful nihilism is turned against sheer (passive) nihilism of
“fake” emancipation theories and movements. At this point, Jünger, as the
proponent of “heroic overcoming” of the technological challenge according to
Rolf-Peter Sieferle [98], starts “summoning the gods” along with Heidegger and F.
G. Jünger, “conservative critics of technology,” although the middle Heidegger’s
remark on Jünger’s and Spengler’s technological “idolatry” (positive and negative,
respectively) [35, 261] was an obvious overstatement.

Indeed, the late Jünger gets more pessimistic regarding the proximity of the
anticipated metaphysical transition: according to the forecast from “The Change of
the Gestalt. Prognosis for the 21 Century” (1993) resting on Hölderlin’s poem
“Bread and Wine” [45], the titans will reign throughout the entire 21 century,
whereas the gods will return only after a new Hesiodic titanomachia heralding the
final end of the anthropocentric history [114: 40–41, 49–50, 53–54]. Promised by
Joachim of Fiore “spiritualization” is again mentioned by Jünger [114, 54]. Yet
another of his Hölderlin-inspired [114: 49–50, 51–52] beliefs that man should be
friends both with the gods and “the iron ones,” remains unrevised. In “Nietzsche,”
F. G. Jünger parallels the philosopher’s reverence for the tragic Dionysian art with
the same Hölderlin’s sympathy for the titans and other primordial beings in poems
like “Nature and Art or Saturn and Jupiter” [48]. Lamented by Heidegger, who
discussed Nietzsche in the broader framework of lecture courses on Hölderlin and
considered him superior to Nietzsche in terms of delving into the depth of Greek
Dasein [27, 135; see also 76], in E. Jünger’s case, Hölderlin’s “flight of the gods”
[47, 210] becomes a matter of approaching the “untethered titans” [46].

For this purpose, Jünger adds an intermediate figure of Dionysus, one of the late
Nietzsche’s alter egos. As the myth tells us, once torn apart by the titans, Dionysus
himself resembles them by his ecstatic overwhelming powers disclosed by Carl
Gustav Jung in “Wotan” essay (1936), among others, alluding to the Unknown
God from Nietzsche’s poetry [4, 311–312]. Surrounded by maenads, this “thrice-
born” companion of Demeter and Persephone unites the living and the dead in a
ritual procession. The god of the underworld in Orphic mysteries, Dionysus, in
Jünger’s opinion, truly resides in Eleusis where the mysteries of resurrected nature
are celebrated [51, 71].

As a philosophical writer, Jünger makes this observation in the technology-themed

novella “Aladdin’s Problem” (1983) claiming that the true opposition is not
between the Apollonian and the Dionysian, as Nietzsche believed, but between the
divine and the titanic [51, 71], between the gods as patrons of creation, culture,
meaning, poetry, memory, identity and borders and the titans standing for
voluntarism, activism, productivity, speed, Sisyphean efforts, borderlessness,
formlessness, hybris, etc. [52, also see 59]. Dionysus, accordingly, becomes a
redeeming link between the anticipated breakthrough of divine timelessness and
repetitive activities in concrete temples of the titans, factories, that is, work as the
way to worship them, for the eternal recurrence Jünger associates precisely with
the titans [114, 60–61].

Well-aware of Prussian militarism’s dangers, Nietzsche concurred on the dictum

“when cannons roar, muses are silent” [86, 288–289]. Nietzsche’s disciple and
Jünger’s teacher, highly influential both in Young-Conservative and National-
Revolutionary circles, it was Spengler who reinterpreted the Apollonian-Dionysian
opposition through the prism of Nietzsche’s phenomenology of European
decadence, as well as “young” and “old” peoples as the dichotomy of culture,
when a cultural organism is full of vital creative forces, and civilization, when only
its “mummy” remains, as it is currently the case at the late “Caesarist” phase of
Western “Faustian” soul. At this stage of the aged and “declined” West [100: 146,
194–195, 453], art, literature and architecture are far beyond the peak; only
calculation, construction, spatial expansion and quantitative growth in general
matter [100, 1–67]. Having borrowed Spengler’s “world-historical perspective,”
also indebted to Joachim of Fiore [101, 31], and rendered the contrast of organic
phases as the clash and coexistence of the divine and the titanic, Jünger made a big
step forwards as compared to the Young-Conservative actualization of Nietzsche.

To sum up, starting with the very etymological level, CR may be regarded as the
fullest attempted explication of Nietzscheanism as a dynamic worldview. In turn,
the futuristic relevance of its pivotal message of the self-overcoming of nihilism is
comprehensively elucidated by Ernst Jünger as the face of CR, according to
Mohler, and the only true Nietzschean, according to Heidegger. Supplemented by
Locchi’s spherical conception of history, the potential of Nietzscheanism is
revealed in the discussions of Jünger and Heidegger on the prospects for the great
metaphysical transition after the Interregnum, in Jünger’s terms, or the second
beginning of metaphysics, in Heidegger’s. Besides, Jünger’s distinction of the gods
and the titans is the insightful upgrading of Nietzsche’s dichotomy of the
Apollonian and the Dionysian bringing to the surface a lacking dimension of
technology in Nietzsche’s work. Filling this critical gap in the modern
Nietzscheana will open new horizons for the interdisciplinary application of
Nietzsche’s ideas and the “rebirth” of philosophy in the light of the conservative-
revolutionary discovery of the super- or altmodern.

Literature

1. Aschheim S. E. The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany : 1890–1990 / Steven E.

Aschheim // Weimar and Now : German Cultural Criticism. – Berkeley, Los
Angeles, Oxford : University of California Press, 1994. – Vol. 2. – 337 p.
2. Bataille G. Nietzsche et les fascistes. Une reparation par G. Bataille, P.
Klossowski, A. Masson, J. Rollin, J. Wahl / Georges Bataille // Acéphale
(Religion, sociologie, philosophie). – 1937. – № 2. – P. 3–21.
3. Benn G. After Nihilism / Gottfried Benn // The Weimar Republic
Sourcebook ; [ed. by Anton Kaes, Martin Jay, Edward Dimendberg. First
published in : Nach dem Nihilismus (Berlin : Gustav Kiepenheuer, 1932, 7–
17)]. – Berkley / Los Angeles / London : University of California Press,
1995. – Pp. 380–384.
4. Bishop P. The Dionysian Self : C.G. Jung's Reception of Friedrich Nietzsche
/ Paul Bishop. – Berlin / New York : Walter de Gruyter, 1995. – 411 p.
5. Breuer S. Anatomie der konservativen Revolution / Stefan Breuer. –
Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993. – 232 S.
6. Diethe C. Historical Dictionary of Nietzscheanism / Carol Diethe //
Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements Series
(2nd ed.). – Lanham, Maryland ; Toronto ; Plymouth, UK : Scarecrow Press,
2007. – Book 75. – 424 p.

7. Dostojewski F. Sämtliche Werke in 25 Bänden ; [unter Mitarbeit von

Dimitri Mereschkowski, hrsg. von Moeller van den Bruck, übertragung E.
K. Rahsin, 1. Auflage] / Fjodor Dostojewski. – München : R. Piper & Co,
1922–1925.
8. Eliade M. Cosmos and History : The Myth of the Eternal Return / Mircea
Eliade ; [Trans. by Willard R. Trask]. – New York : Harper & Brothers,
1954. – 176 p.
9. Ernst Jünger–Martin Heidegger : Briefwechsel 1949–1975 ; [Unter Mitarbeit
von Simone Maier ; hrsg., kommentiert und mit einem Nachwort versehen
von Günter Figal]. – Stuttgart : Klett-Cotta ; Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio
Klostermann, 2008. – 317 S.
10. Faye G. Archeofuturism : European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age ;
[trans. by Sergio Knipe ] / Guillaume Faye. – London : Arktos, 2010. – 249
p.
11. Figal G. Erörterung des Nihilismus. Ernst Jünger und Martin Heidegger /
Günter Figal. – Etudes Germanistiques, 1996. – № 51. – S. 717–725.
12. Fischer H. Nietzsche Apostata : oder Die Philosophie des Ärgernisses /
Hugo Fischer. – Erfurt : K. Stenger, 1931. – 313 S.
13. Forrest D. S. Suprahumanism : European Man and the Regeneration of
History / Daniel S Forrest. – London : Arktos, 2014. – 268 p.
14. George S. Das Neue Reich / Stefan George // Sämtliche Werke in 18 Bänden
; [Hrsg. Von Ute Oelmann, 1. Auflage]. – Band 9. – Stuttgart : Klett-Cotta,
2011. – 149 S.
15. George S. Der Stern des Bundes / Stefan George // Stefan George Stiftung,
bearbeitet von Ute Oelmann, 2. Auflage]. – Band 8. – Stuttgart : Klett-Cotta,
2011. – 153 S.
16. Greiffenhagen M. Das Dilemma des Konservatismus in Deutschland /
Martin Greiffenhagen. – München : Piper, 1977. – 425 S.
17. Guillaume Faye on Nietzsche ; [trans. by Greg Johnson]. – [Електронний
документ]. – Режим доступу: https://www.counter-
currents.com/2012/07/guillaume-faye-on-nietzsche/
18. Habermas J. On Nietzsche’s Theory of Knowledge : A Postscript from 1968
/ Jürgen Habermas // Nietzsche, Theories of Knowledge, and Critical Theory
: Nietzsche and the Sciences [ed. by Babette Babich and Robert E. Cohen]. –
Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers. – Boston Studies in the
Philosophy and History of Science. – Vol. 203. – Pp. 209–223.
19. Habermas J. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity : Twelve Lectures
[trans. by Frederick G. Lawrence] / Jürgen Habermas. – Cambridge, UK
: John Wiley & Sons, 2018. – 456 p.
20. Heidegger M. Beiträgе zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) / Маrtin Heidegger
// Gesamtausgabe : in 102 Bänden ; [herausgegeben von Friedrich-Wilhelm
von Herrmann, III. Abteilung: Unveröffentlichte Abhandlungen / Vorträge –
Gedachtes]. – Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 1989. – Bd. 65. –
521 S.
21. Heidegger M. Brief über den Humanismus / Маrtin Heidegger //
Gesamtausgabe : in 102 Bänden ; [herausgegeben von Friedrich-Wilhelm
von Herrmann, 1. Abteilung: Veröffentlichte Schriften 1914-1970]. –
Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 1989. – Bd. 9 : Wegmarken. – S.
313–364.
22. Heidegger M. Das Rektorat 1933/34 – Tatsachen und Gedanken (1945) /
Маrtin Heidegger // Gesamtausgabe : in 102 Bänden ; [hrsg. von Hermann
Heidegger, I. Abteilung : Veröffentlichte Schriften 1910–1976]. – Frankfurt
am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 2000. – Bd. 16 : Reden und andere
Zeugnisse eines Lebensweges. – S. 372–394.
23. Heidegger M. Der deutsche Student als Arbeiter (Rede am 25. November
1933) / Маrtin Heidegger // Gesamtausgabe : in 102 Bänden ; [hrsg. von
Hermann Heidegger, I. Abteilung : Veröffentlichte Schriften 1910–1976]. –
Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 2000. – Bd. 16 : Reden und
andere Zeugnisse eines Lebensweges. – S. 198–208.
24. Heidegger M. Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik. Welt – Endlichkeit –
Einsamkeit (Wintersemester 1929/30) / Martin Heidegger // Gesamtausgabe
 : in 102 Bänden ; [Hrsg. von Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann]. – Frankfurt
am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 1983. – Bd. 29/30. – 544 S.
25. Heidegger M. Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutsche Universität (27. Mai
1933) / Маrtin Heidegger // Gesamtausgabe : in 102 Bänden ; [hrsg. von
Hermann Heidegger, I. Abteilung : Veröffentlichte Schriften 1910–1976]. –
Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 2000. – Bd. 16 : Reden und
andere Zeugnisse eines Lebensweges. – S.107–117.
26. Heidegger M. Die Zeit des Weltbildes / Martin Heidegger // Gesamtausgabe
: in 102 Bänden ; [herausgegeben von Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann, 1.
Abteilung : Veröffentlichte Schriften 1914–1970]. – Frankfurt am Main :
Vittorio Klostermann, 1977. – Bd. 5 : Holzwege. – S. 75–113.
27. Heidegger M. Einführung in die Metaphysik (Sommersemester 1935) /
Martin Heidegger // Gesamtausgabe : in 102 Bänden ; [hrsg. von Petra
Jaeger, Abteilung II : Vorlesungen 1923–1944]. – Frankfurt am Main :
Vittorio Klostermann, 1977. – Bd. 40. – 234 S.
28. Heidegger M. Nietzsche : Der europäische Nihilismus / Martin Heidegger //
Gesamtausgabe : in 102 Bänden ; [herausgegeben von Brigitte Schillbach]. –
Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 1997. – Bd. 6.2. – S. 23–229.
29. Heidegger M. Nietzsches Lehre vom Willen zur Macht als Erkenntnis
(Sommersemester 1939) / Martin Heidegger // Gesamtausgabe : in 102
Bänden ; [Hrsg. von Eberhard Hanser, II. Abteilung : Vorlesungen 1919–
1944 (Freiburger Vorlesungen 1928–1944)]. – Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio
Klostermann, 1989. – B. 47. – 330 S.
30. Heidegger M. Nietzsches Wort “Gott ist tot” / Маrtin Heidegger //
Gesamtausgabe : in 102 Bänden ; [herausgegeben von Friedrich-Wilhelm
von Herrmann, 1. Abteilung: Veröffentlichte Schriften 1914-1970]. –
Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 1977. – Bd. 5 : Holzwege. – S.
209–267.
31. Heidegger M. Nietzsche : The Will to Power as Art ; [ed. and trans. by
David Farrell Krell] / Martin Heidegger. – San Francisco : Harper Collins,
1991. – Vol. 1. – Pp. 1–220.
32. Heidegger M. “Nur ein Gott kann uns noch retten” / Martin Heidegger. –
Der Spiegel. – № 23. – 1976. – S. 193–219.
33. Heidegger M. On Ernst Jünger (1) / Martin Heidegger // The Heidegger
Reader ; [ed. with an introduction by Günter Figal, trans. by Jerome Veith].
– Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Press, 2009. – Pp. 189–200.
34. Heidegger M. Über Die Linie / Martin Heidegger // Freundschaftliche
Begegnungen : Festschrift für Ernst Jünger zum 60. – Frankfurt am Main :
Vittorio Klostermann, 1955. – S. 9–45.
35. Heidegger M. Überlegungen II–IV (Schwarze Hefte 1931–1938) / Martin
Heidegger // Gesamtausgabe : in 102 Bänden ; [hrsg. von Peter Trawny]. –
Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 2014. – Bd. 94. – 536 S.
36. Heidegger М. Zu Ernst Jünger / Martin Heidegger // Gesamtausgabe : in 102
Bänden ; [hrsg. von Peter Trawny, IV. Abteilung : Hinweise und
Aufzeichnungen]. – Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 2003. – Bd.
90. – 472 S.
37. Heidegger M. Zur Seinsfrage / Маrtin Heidegger // Gesamtausgabe : in 102
Bänden ; [herausgegeben von Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann, 1.
Abteilung : Veröffentlichte Schriften 1914–1970]. – Frankfurt am Main :
Vittorio Klostermann, 1989. – Bd. 9 : Wegmarken. – S. 385–426.
38. Herf J. Reactionary Modernism : Technology, Culture and Politics in
Weimar and the Third Reich / Jeffrey Herf. – Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press, 1984. – 251 р.
39. Hervier J. The Details of Time : Conversations with Ernst Jünger / Julien
Hervier ; [trans. by Joachim Neugroschel]. – NY : Marsilo Publishers, 1995.
– 139 p.
40. Herzinger R. Feldzeichen des Nichts : Die Gewaltphilosophie der
Konservativen Revolution und der Chiliasmus der deutschen Übermoderne /
Richard Herzinger // Jahrbuch für Literatur in Deutschland, 1: Gewalt,
Faszination und Furcht ; [ed. by Franke Meyer]. – Leipzig : Gosan, 1994. –
S. 72–95.
41. Hielscher F. Das Reich / Friedrich Hielscher. – Berlin : Das Reich, 1931. –
380 S.
42. Hielscher F. Fünfzig Jahre unter Deutschen / Friedrich Hielscher. –
Hamburg : Rowohlt, 1954. – 483 S.
43. Hoffmann P. Stauffenberg : A Family History, 1905–1944 ; [revised and
trans. by the author] / Peter Hoffmann. – Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press, 1995. – 424 p.
44. Hofmannsthal H. von. Das Schrifttum als geistiger Raum der Nation / Hugo
von Hofmannsthal // Gesammelte Werke in Einzelausgaben. Prosa ; [hrsg.
von Herbert Steiner]. – Band IV. – Frankfurt am Main : Fischer, 1955. – S.
390–414.
45. Hölderlin F. Brod und Wein / Bread and Wine / Friedrich Hölderlin //
Hyperion and Selected Poems ; [ed. by Eric L. Santner]. – New York : The
Continuum Publishing Company, 1990. – Pp. 178–188.
46. Hölderlin F. Die Titanen / Friedrich Hölderlin // Sämtliche Werke. Große
Stuttgarter Ausgabe : in 8 Bänden ; [Hg. v. Friedrich Beißner]. – Stuttgart :
Kohlhammer Verlag, 1951. – Bd. 2.1 : Gedichte nach 1800. – S. 217–219.
47. Hölderlin F. Germanien / Germania / Friedrich Hölderlin //
Hyperion and Selected Poems ; [ed. by Eric L. Santner]. – New York : The
Continuum Publishing Company, 1990. – Pp. 208–215.
48. Hölderlin F. Natur und Kunst oder Saturn und Jupiter / Nature and Art or
Saturn and Jupiter / Friedrich Hölderlin // Hyperion and Selected Poems ;
[ed. by Eric L. Santner]. – New York : The Continuum Publishing
Company, 1990. – Pp. 150–152.
49. Jaspers K. Nietzsche : Einführung in das Verständnis seines Philosophierens
/ Karl Jaspers. – Berlin / New York : Walter de Gruyter, 1981. – 487 S.
50. Jung E.J. Germany and the Conservative Revolution / Edgar Julius Jung //
The Weimar Republic Sourcebook ; [ed. by Anton Kaes, Martin Jay,
Edward Dimendberg. First published in : Deutsche über Deutschland
(Munich : Albert Langen, 1932, 369–382)]. – Berkley / Los Angeles /
London : University of California Press, 1995. – Pp. 352–354.
51. Jünger E. Aladdin’s Problem / Ernst Jünger ; [trans. by Joachim
Neugroschel]. – New York : Marsilio Publisher Corporation, 1992. – 136 p.
52. Jünger E. An der Zeitmauer / Еrnst Jünger // Werke in 10 Bänden : Essays
II. Der Arbeiter. – Stuttgart : Ernst Klett, 1963. – Bd. 6. – S. 407–661.
53. Jünger E. Das abenteuerliche Herz. Erste Fassung / Еrnst Jünger // Werke in
10 Bänden : Essays III. Das Abenteuerliche Herz. Erste Fassung. – Stuttgart
: Ernst Klett, 1963. – Bd. 7. – S. 25–176.
54. Jünger E. Der Arbeiter / Еrnst Jünger // Werke in 10 Bänden : Essays II. Der
Arbeiter. – Stuttgart : Ernst Klett, 1963. – Bd. 6. – S. 9–229.
55. Jünger E. On Pain ; [trans. by David C. Durst] / Ernst Jünger. – New York :
Telos Press Publishing, 2008. – 47 p.
56. Jünger E. Skulls and Reefs / Ernst Jünger // Kronos. Philosophical Journal ;
[transl. by Joel Feinberg]. – Warsaw : Fundacja Augusta hr.
Cieszkowskiego. – Vol. VI. – Pp. 5–12.

57. Jünger E. Über die Linie / Еrnst Jünger // Werke in 10 Bänden : Essays I.
Betrachtungen zur Zeit. – Stuttgart : Ernst Klett, 1960. – Band 5. – S. 245–
289.
58. Jünger E. Über die Linie / Еrnst Jünger // Anteile. Festschrift für Martin
Heidegger zum 60. Geburtstag. – Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio Klostermann,
1950. – S. 245–284.
59. Jünger F. G. Griechische Mythen ; [5. Auflage] / Friedrich Georg Jünger. –
Frankfurt am Main : Vittorio Klostermann, 2001. – 336 S.
60. Jünger F. G. Nietzsche / Friedrich Georg Jünger. – Frankfurt am Main :
Vittorio Klostermann, 1949. – 172 S.
61. Jünger F. G. The Failure of Technology : Perfection Without Purpose ;
[trans. by F. D. Wieck, 1st edition] / Friedrich Georg Jünger. – Hinsdale :
Henry Regnery Company. – 186 p.
62. Kantorowicz E. Das Geheime Deutschland. Vorlesung, gehalten bei der
Wiederaufnahme der Lehrtätigkeit am 14. November 1933 / Ernst
Kantorowicz // Ernst Kantorowicz. Erträge der Doppeltagung Institute for
Advanced Study, Princeton, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt
; [hrsg. von Benson Robert L., Fried Johannes]. – Stuttgart : Steiner, 1997. –
S. 77–93.
63. Kiesel H. Wissenschaftliche Diagnose und dichterische Visiоn der Moderne.
Max Weber und Ernst Jünger / Helmuth Kiesel. – Heidelberg : Manutius
Verlag, 1994. – 222 S.
64. Klemperer K. von. Germany’s New Conservatism : Its History and Dillema
in the Twentieth Century / Klemens von Klemperer. – Princeton : Princeton
University Press, 2015. – 284 p.
65. Koslowski P. Der Mythos der Moderne die dichterische Philosophie Ernst
Jüngers / Peter Koslowski. – München : Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1991. – 200
S.
66. Krieck E. Völkisch-politische Anthropologie : Erster Teil : Die Wirklichkeit
/ Ernst Krieck. – Leipzig : Armanen-Verlag, 1936. – 119 S.
67. Locchi G. Wagner, Nietzsche e il mito sovrumanista / Giorgio Locchi. –
Roma : Akropolis, 1982. – 212 p.
68. Löwith K. Nietzsche’s Philosophy of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same ;
[trans. by J. Harvey Lomax] / Karl Löwith. – Berkley : University of
California Press, 1997. – 276 p.
69. Löwith K. Von Hegel zu Nietzsche – Der revolutionäre Bruch im Denken
des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts / Karl Löwith // Sämtliche Schriften : in 9
Bänden. – Stuttgart : Metzler, 1988. – Bd. 4. – S. 1–490.
70. Lukács G. The Destruction of Reason ; [trans. by Peter Palmer] /
Georg Lukács. – Atlantic Highlands, NJ : Humanities Press, 1981. – 865 p.
71. Magub R. Edgar Julius Jung, Right-wing Enemy of the Nazis : A Political
Biography / Roshan Magub. – Rochester, New York : Camden House, 2017.
– 312 p.
72. Mann T. Adel des Geistes. Zwanzig Versuche zum Problem der Humanität /
Thomas Mann. – Berlin : Aufbau-Verlag, 1956. – 798 S.
73. Mann T. Die Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen / Thomas Mann //
Gesammelte Werke in dreizehn Bänden, 2. Auflage. – Band 12 : Reden
und Aufsätze 4. – Frankfurt am Main : Fischer, 1974. – S. 9–589.
74. Mann T. Maß und Wert : Vorwort zum ersten Jahrgang (1937) / Thomas
Mann // Gesammelte Werke in dreizehn Bänden, 2. Auflage. – Band 12 :
Reden und Aufsätze 4. – Frankfurt am Main : Fischer, 1974. – S. 798 – 812.
75. Mann T. Russische Anthologie / Thomas Mann // Gesammelte Werke in
dreizehn Bänden. – Band 10 : Reden und Aufsätze 2. – Frankfurt am Main :
Fischer, 1974. – 1151 S.
76. McNeill W. Heidegger’s Hölderlin Lectures / William McNeill // The
Bloomsbury Companion to Heidegger ; [ed. by F. Raffoul & E. Nelson]. –
New York : Bloomsbury, 2013. – Pp. 223–235.
77. Mehring R. Carl Schmitt : Aufstieg und Fall. Eine Biographie / Reinhard
Mehring. – München : C. H. Beck, 2009. – 749 S.
78. Mehring R. Martin Heidegger und die “konservative Revolution” / Reinhard
Mehring. – Freiburg im Breisgau / München : Karl Alber, 2019. – 232 S.
79. Moeller van den Bruck A. Germany’s Third Empire ; [trans. by Emily
Overend Lorimer, 3rd edition] / Arthur Moeller van den Bruck. – London :
Arktos, 2012. – 254 p.
80. Mohler A. Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland 1918–1932 : ein
Handbuch ; [Dritte, um einen Ergänzungsband erweiterte Auflage] / Armin
Mohler. – Darmstadt : WiS. Buchges,1989. – 554 S.
81. Mohler A., Weißmann K. Die konservative Revolution in Deutschland
1918–1932 : ein Handbuch ; [6., völlig überarb. und erw. Aufl.] / Armin
Mohler ; Karlheinz Weißmann. – Graz : Ares-Verlag, 2005. – 643 S.
82. Niekisch E. Gewagtes Leben. Begegnungen und Begebnisse / Ernst
Niekisch. – Köln, Berlin : Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1958. – 390 S.
83. Nietzsche F. An Heinrich Köselitz in Venedig / Friedrich Nietzsche //
Sämtliche Briefe : Kritische Studienausgabe in 8 Bänden ; [hrsg. von G.
Colli und M. Montinari, 2. Auflage]. – München : Deutscher Taschenbuch
Verlag / New York : Walter de Gruyter, 1986. – Bd. 1 : Juni 1850–
September 1864. – S. 211–213.
84. Nietzsche F. Der Wille zur Macht / Friedrich Nietzsche // Nietzsche’s Werke
(Zweite Abteilung) : Nachgelassene Werke von Friedrich Nietzsche : Ecce
Homo, Der Wille zur Macht : Erstes und Zweites Buch ; [Dritte Auflage ;
Vorw. des Hrsg. : Otto Weiss]. – Leipzig : Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1922. –
Band XV. – S. 134–489.
85. Nietzsche F. W. Ecce Homo : How One Becomes what One is ; The
Antichrist : a Curse on Christianity ; [trans. by Thomas Wayne] / Friedrich
Wilhelm Nietzsche. – New York : Algora Publishing, 2004. – 174 p.
86. Nietzsche F. Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, I und II / Friedrich
Nietzsche // Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden ;
 [hrsg. von G. Colli und M. Montinari, 2. Auflage]. – München : Deutscher
Taschenbuch Verlag / New York : Walter de Gruyter, 1988. – Bd. 2. – 720
S.
87. Nietzsche F. Nachgelassene Fragmente 1887–1889 / Friedrich Nietzsche //
Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden ; [hrsg. von G.
Colli und M. Montinari, 2. Auflage]. – München : Deutscher Taschenbuch
Verlag / New York : Walter de Gruyter, 1999. – Bd. 13. – 672 S.
88. Nietzsche F. The Will to Power ; [trans. by Walter Kaufmann and
R.J.Hollingdale, ed. by Walter Kaufmann] / Friedrich Nietzsche. – New
York : Vintage Books, A Division of Random House. – 575 p.
89. Nietzsche-Lektüren : Nietzsche und die Konservative Revolution / [Hrsg.
von Sebastian Kaufmann, Andreas Urs Sommer]. – Berlin / Boston : Walter
de Gruyter, 2018. – B. 2. – 658 S.
90. O’Meara M. New Culture, New Right : Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern
Europe / Michael O'Meara. – Bloomington : AuthorHouse, 2004. – 228 p.
91. Pechel R. Deutscher Widerstand / Rudolf Pechel. – Erlenbach-Zürich :
Eugen Rentsch, 1947. – 343 S.
92. Penshorn S. Zarathustra auf dem Obersalzberg : Die Nietzsche-Rezeption
Ernst Niekischs nach 1945 / Sascha Penshorn // Nietzsche und die
Konservative Revolution. – Berlin / Boston : Walter de Gruyter, 2018. – B.
2. – 505–536.
93. Riedel M. Geheimes Deutschland : Stefan George und die Brüder
Stauffenberg / Manfred Riedel. – Köln : Böhlau Verlag, 2006. – 267 S.
94. Riedl M. Longing for the Third Age : Revolutionary Joachism,
Communism, and National Socialism / Matthias Riedl // Brill’s Companions
to the Christian Tradition : A Companion to Joachim of Fiore ; [ed. by
Matthias Riedl]. – Leiden / Boston : BRILL, 2017. – Vol. 75. – Pp. 267–
318.
95. Rockmore T. Heidegger’s Philosophy and Nazism / Tom Rockmore. –
Berkeley / Los Angeles / London : University of California Press, 1992. –
382 p.
96. Schärf C. Das Ausstrahlungsphänomen Gottfried Benns Nietzsche-
Projektionen / Christian Schärf // Klassik und Moderne Schriftenreihe der
Klassik Stiftung Weimar : Friedrich Nietzsche und die Literatur der
klassischen Moderne ; [hrsg. von Thorsten Valk]. – Berlin / New York : De
Gruyter, 2009. – Bd. 1 – S. 231–246.
97. Schwilk H. Ernst Jünger : Leben und Werk in Bildern und Texten / Heimo
Schwilk. – Stuttgart : Klett-Cotta, 1988. – 320 S.
98. Sieferle R-P. Ernst Jüngers Versuch einer heroischen Überwindung der
Technikkritik / Rolf-Peter Sieferle // Selbstverständnisse der Moderne :
Formationen der Philosophie, Politik, Theologie und Ökonomie; [hrsg. von
Günter Figal und Rolf-Peter Sieferle]. – Stuttgart : Metzlersche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1991. – S.133–174.
99. Sloterdijk P. Der Denker auf der Bühne : Nietzsches Materialismus / Peter
Sloterdijk. – Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp, 1986. – 190 S.
100. Spengler O. Der Untergang des Abendlandes : Umrisse einer
Morphologie der Weltgeschichte ; [völlig umgestaltete Ausgabe] / Oswald
Spengler. – München : Oskar Beck, C.H. Becksche, 1923. – Band 1 :
Gestalt und Wirklichkeit. – 603 S.
101. Spengler O. Der Untergang des Abendlandes : Umrisse einer
Morphologie der Weltgeschichte ; [einunddreissigste bis zweiundvierzigste
Auflage] / Oswald Spengler. – München : Oskar Beck, C.H. Becksche,
1922. – Band 2 : Welthistorische Perspektiven. – 635 S.
102. Steffen H. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche und die Dichtung Hofmannsthals
/ Hans Steffen // Nietzsche. Werk und Wirkungen ; [Hrsg. von Hans
Steffen]. – Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. – S. 65–90.
103. Szabó L V. “…eine so gespannte Seele wie Nietzsche.” Zu Hugo von
Hofmannsthals Nietzsche-Rezeption / Szabó V. László // Jahrbuch der
ungarischen Germanistik ; [hrsg. von Gesellschaft ungarischer Germanisten,
Budapest und Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, Bonn]. – Budapest
: Gondolat Kiadoi Kör / Bonn : DAAD, 2006. – S. 69–93.
104. Trawny P. Martin Heidegger / Peter Trawny ; [Hrsg. von Thorsten
Bonacker (Marburg), Hans-Martin Lohmann (Frankfurt a.M.)]. – Frankfurt
am Main / New York : Campus Verlag, 2003. – 192 S.
105. Trawny P. George dichtet Nietzsche. Überlegungen zur Nietzsche-
Rezeption Stefan Georges und seines Kreises ; [hrsg. von Wolfgang
Braungart und Ute Oelmann] / Peter Trawny // George-Jahrbuch. – Band. 3.
– Tübingen : Max Niemeyer, 2000/01. – S. 34–68.
106. Troeltsch E. Der metaphysische und religiöse Geist der deutschen
Kultur / Ernst Troeltsch // Deutscher Geist und Westeuropa : gesammelte
kulturphilosophische Aufsätze und Reden ; [Hrsg. von Gangolf Hübinger]. –
Tübingen : Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr. – S. 59–79.
107. Troeltsch E. Die Krisis des Historismus / Ernst Troeltsch // Schriften
zur Politik und Kulturphilosophie (1918–1923) ; Ernst Troeltsch : Kritische
Gesamtausgabe ; [Hrsg. von Gangolf Hübinger]. – Berlin / New York :
Walter de Gruyter, 2002. – Vol. 15. – S. 433–456.
108. Woods R. The Conservative Revolution in the Weimar Republic /
Roger Woods. – New York : St. Martin’s, 1996. – 173 p.
109. Достоевский Ф. М. Дневник писателя / Федор Достоевский //
Собрание сочинений : В 9-ти т. – Т. 9. Книга 1. – Москва. : Астрель,
АСТ, 2007. – 844 с.
110. Лютий Т. Ніцше. Самоперевершення / Тарас Лютий. – К. :
Темпора, 2016. – 978 с.
111. Мережковский Д. Данте / Дмитрий Мережковский // Собрание
сочинений : В 8 т. ; [сост. О. А. Коростелев, А. Н. Николюкин, ред. О.
А. Коростелев [и др.], вступ. ст. А. Н. Николюкин]. – М. : Республика,
2000. – Т. 4 : Данте. Наполеон. – С. 141–239.
112. Михайловский А. Чего не видел Эрнст Юнгер. Рец. на : M.
Heidegger. Zu Ernst Jünger. Gesamtausgabe. Bd. 90 / Александр
Михайловский // Ежегодник по феноменологической философии. – М. :
Изд-во РГГУ, 2008. – Т. 1. – С. 477–491.
113. Молодяков В. Консервативная революция в Японии : идеология и
политика / Василий Молодяков. – М. : Изд. Фирма «Восточная
Литература» РАН, 1999. – 329 с.
114. Юнгер Э. Смена гештальта. Прогноз на XXI век – Ernst Jünger.
Gestaltwandel. Eine Prognose auf das 21. Jahrhundert ; [пер. с нем. и
послесловие А. Михайловского] / Эрнст Юнгер. – М. : Издание
книжного магазина «Циолковский», 2018. – 80 с.